tihvavy  of t^he  t:heolo0ical  ^tmxnary 

PRINCETON    .    NEW  JERSEY 

PRESENTED  BY 

A.    G.    Cameron,  Ph.D. 


"89^/0 


A.    REJOINDER 


TO 


THE   PRINCETON  REVIEW, 


UPON 


THE  ELOHIM  REVEALED, 


TOUCHING 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMPUTATION 


AND 


KINDRED  TOPICS. 


SAMUEL    J.    BAIRD 


< 


^'(f 


PHILADELPHIA: 

Joseph  M.  Wilson,  No.  Ill  South  Tenth  Street,  below  Chestnut. 

1860. 


A   REJOINDER. 


In  the  summer  of  1854,  a  minister  appeared  at  the  bar  of  one 
of  our  Presbyteries  as  an  applicant  for  membership,  having  a  cer- 
tificate of  dismission  in  good  standing  from  a  sister  Presbytery.  In 
the  course  of  the  consequent  examination,  the  question  was  asked, 
«'  What  relation  do  we  sustain  to  the  sin  of  Adam  ?''  Answer — 
"We  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him.''  "Do  you  mean  anything 
more  than  that  we  ai-e  regarded  and  treated  as  though,  we  had 
sinned  in  Adam?"  "I  mean  that  we  sinned  in  him,  and  are  there- 
fore so  treated."  "  But  how  did  we  sin  in  him  ?"  "  We  were  in 
him  seminally,  as  our  root  and  cause;  and,  as  members,  were  intrin- 
sically involved  in  a  true  and  proper  responsibility  for  the  action 
of  our  head."  "  How  is  this  parallel  with  gratuitous  justification ?" 
*'  In  the  first  place,  the  parallel  fails,  by  the  whole  extent  of  the 
difference  between  law  and  grace ;  since  our  relation  to  Adam  comes 
confessedly  within  the  province  of  the  legal  covenant,  and  that  to 
the  second  Adam  belongs  to  the  covenant  of  grace.  In  the  second 
place,  the  parallel  is  sustained,  in  the  mode  in  which  Christ's 
righteousness  is  bestowed  upon  us ;  which  is  by  our  engrafting  into 
him  in  regeneration."  "But  Dr.  Hodge  teaches  that  we  did  not 
really  sin  in  Adam,  but  are  only  so  regarded  and  treated."  "I  am 
aware  that  such  is  his  opinion;  but  I  do  not  so  understand  the 
Bible,  nor  our  constitution."  This  avowal  was  the  signal  for  a 
storm  of  denunciation  against  the  examinee,  in  which  he  was  stig- 
matized by  leading  members  with  almost  every  name  of  heresy 
which  is  most  obnoxious  to  the  Reformed  Churches. 

Pending  the  discussion,  the  following  paper  was  laid  upon  the 
table  by  the  party  under  examination : 

"I  hold  (1.)  That  the  covenant  was  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for 
himself  but  for  his  posterity.  (2.)  That  the  cause  of  Adam's  federal 
relation  was  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  Grod.  (3.)  That  the  relation  thus 
ordained  finds  occasion  and  justification  in  the  fact  that  we  were  present 


in  Adam,  (4.)  That  this  presence  in  him  is  not  physical,  on  the  one 
hand,  nor  merely  putative  on  the  other,  but  real ;  and  although  beyond 
our  full  comprehension,  as  are,  in  fact,  all  the  ultimate  phenomena  of  our 
being,  yet  this  much  seems  clearly  ascertained  by  reason,  and  confirmed 
by  scripture ;  to  wit, — that  we  are  not  mere  offshoots  from  Adam,  formed 
in  the  same  mould  ;.  but  by  ordinary  generation  derive  something  real,  the 
germ  of  our  being,  upon  which  are  predicated  those  attributes  which 
commonly  pass  under  the  name  of  nature.  Levi  was  in  the  loins  of 
Abraham  when  Melchizedek  met  him.  (5.)  That  hence  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  is  not  merely  legal,  but  the  legal  charge  is  based  on  the  prior 
fact,  that  we  being  really  in  him  in  his  sin,  were  so  justly  condemned  in 
his  condemnation. 

"  On  the  other  hand  I  hold,  (1.)  That  it  was  necessary  for  the  Son  of 
Grod  to  assume  human  nature  by  generation,  so  as  to  be  one  with  our 
race,  and  so  subject  to  the  law  of  God  for  our  sins ;  whilst  being  begotten 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  by  ordinary  generation,  he  was 
free  from  the  sinfulness  of  our  nature.  (2.)  That  the  believer  is,  by  the 
communication  to  him  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  dwelling  in  and  proceeding  from 
Christ,  united  to  him  in  a  real  union,  expressed  by  the  scriptures  as 
being  'members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh  and  of  his  bones,'  &c.  (3.)  That 
this  identity  it  is  which  entitles  the  believer  to  claim  Christ's  righteous- 
ness as  his,  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  justified  at  the  bar  of  God.  (4.) 
That  hence  it  follows,  that  whilst  the  plan  of  salvation  thus  wrought  is 
altogether  gratuitous,  and  hence  of  mere  grace, — on  the  other  hand,  as  by 
the  wonderful  working  of  that  free  grace  we  are  engrafted  into  Christ, 
and  he  is  made  our  Head,  the  law  being  satisfied,  we  may  with  reverent 
boldness  and  adoring  gratitude  make  the  plea  at  the  bar  of  justice  of  <  Not 
guilty,'  since  Christ  and  all  he  has  done  is  not  only  putatively,  but,  by 
free  grace  uniting  us,  really  ours. 

"P.  S. — This  paper  having  been  written  in  great  haste,  during  recess 
of  Presbytery,  any  verbal  inaccuracy  or  inadvertent  omission  is  thereby 
accounted  for.  Samuel  J.  Baird." 

Upon  the  reading  of  this  paper  it  was  remarked — "  That  is  just 
what  you  said  before."  The  reply  was — "  It  is  what  I  meant  to 
say,  and  upon  which  I  am  ready  to  stand  or  fall."  The  ultimate 
result  was  the  adoption  by  the  Presbytery  of  a  resolution  formally 
expressive  of  confidence  in  my  orthodoxy,  and  disavowing  all 
responsibility  for  the  impeachments  which  had  been  urged  by  mem- 
bers with  so  much  violence. 

Such  was  the  occasion  whence  grew  the  publication  of  The  Elohim 
Eevealed.     Three  considerations  impelled  the  author  to  write  :  His 


personal  orthodoxy  had  been  bitterly  impeached,  and  he  did  not 
choose  to  leave  his  character  at  the  mercy  of  whispered  rumors 
which  might  steal  abroad :  doctrines  which  he  felt  to  involve  the 
very  marrow  of  gospel  divinity,  were  assailed  and  denounced,  and 
he  felt  called  upon  to  bear  a  testimony  in  their  behalf:  and  the 
mode  of  attack  showed  a  spirit  of  haughty  intolerance  to  which  he 
could  give  place  by  subjection, — no,  not  for  an  hour.  That  my 
assailants  were  not  unworthy  representatives  of  the  school  of 
opinions  to  which  they  belonged,  the  review  of  The  Elohim  Ee- 
vealed  in  the  April  number  of  the  Princeton  Repertory  is  evidence; 
and  considerations  very  near  akin  to  those  which  induced  my  former 
publication,  impel  me  again  to  trespass  upon  the  patience  of  my 
brethren.  The  authority  of  Dr.  Hodge  was  the  standard  of  appeal 
by  my  assailants  in  Presbytery.  The  opinions  which  they  embraced 
it  has  been  the  cherished  labor  of  his  life  to  fortify  and  disseminate. 
Those  opinions,  as  set  forth  in  his  published  writings,  were,  in  The 
Elohim  Revealed,  examined  in  a  spirit  of  fraternal  courtesy  and 
unfeigned  deference ;  but  with  the  liberty  which,  on  such  a  subject, 
is  proper  to  one  who  claims  to  be  the  Lord's  freeman.  Under 
such  circumstances,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the  judgment  passed 
upon  the  book  by  the  professor,  if  he  saw  fit  to  notice  it  at  all, 
would  be  condemnatory.  And  had  such  a  decision  been  pronounced, 
as  the  result  of  a  calm,  deliberate  and  candid  examination,  backed 
by  all  the  powerful  and  extended  influence  which  the  reviewer 
enjoys,  the  effect,  however  detrimental,  I  was  prepared  to  have  met 
in  silence,  awaiting  the  ultimate  judgment  of  the  church,  when  the 
whole  argument  should  have  been  maturely  weighed,  and  prejudices 
lost  in  the  lapse  of  time. 

But  my  reviewer  has  chosen  a  different  course.  In  an  article, — 
the  tone  of  which  is  condemned  even  by  the  author's  returning 
sense  of  propriety,  before  his  ink  was  dry,  or  the  last  sentence  had 
been  written, — an  article  confessedly  immature  and  hasty, —  con- 
fessedly marked  by  irritatibn  of  feeling,*  and  which,  as  a  neces- 


*  ''It  is  one  of  the  infelicities  of  a  review  that  it  is  commonly  written  currente 
calamo,  and  sent  piecemeal  to  the  press  before  the  ink  is  thoroughly  dried.  It 
is,  therefore,  apt  to  bear  the  impress  of  the  feelings  which  the  book  reviewed 
makes  at  the  time  on  the  writer's  mind.  If  it  could  be  laid  aside,  and  allowed 
to  cool,  much  might  be  softened  or  modified.  It  is  possible  that,  when  we  come 
to  see  this  review  in  print,  we  may  wish  that  some  things  had  been  otherwise 
expressed,"'  &c. — Princeton  Review,  April,  1860,  p.  375. 


saiy  consequence,  is  unjust  to  the  work,  both  in  respect  to  its  style 
and  doctrines — the  attempt  is  made  by  the  mere  force  of  scornful 
denunciation,  to  trample  opposition  in  the  dust,  and  annihilate  at 
once  author  and  book.*  In  these  circumstances,  I  address  my 
brethren  with  confidence  of  an  impartial  hearing.  "If  I  be  an 
offender,  or  have  committed  anything  worthy  of  death,  I  refuse  not 
to  die ;  but  if  there  be  none  of  these  things  whereof  these  accuse 
me,  no  man  may  deliver  me  unto  them."  Did  the  matters  involved 
merely  concern  personal  interests  and  character,  I  should  hesitate 
to  claim  the  attention  of  the  church.  But  the  whole  question 
relates  to  doctrines  which  are  fundamental  to  the  gospel  scheme, — 
doctrines,  upon  some  of  which,  relating  to  the  vital  subject  of  jus- 
tification, I  did  not  imagine,  until  the  appearance  of  the  review  in 
question,  there  could  be  any  difference  among  intelligent  Pres- 
byterians. Whoever,  therefore,  may  be  in  error  in  the  present 
discussion,  the  importance  of  the  issues  cannot  be  questioned,  and 
the  claim  upon  the  attention  of  those  who  are  set  for  the  defence 
of  the  gospel  is  invested  with  proportionate  authority.  It  is  proper 
to  add  that  if,  upon  the  points  here  considered,  it  is  my  mis- 
fortune to  lie  under  the  censure  of  the  reviewer,  I  enjoy,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  approving  suffrages  of  some  of  the  brightest  orna- 
ments of  the  church  of  the  present  day.  Theological  professors 
and  distinguished  divines  of  the  United  Presbyterian,  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian,  and  the  Reformed  Dutch  and  other  churches,  as  well 
as  of  our  own,  have,  in  public  and  private,  given  their  hearty 
sanction,  and  bid  me  God  speed  in  these  labors. 

The  metaphysical  aspects  of  the  subjects  involved  are  much 
insisted  upon  by  tlie  reviewer.  A  series  of  philosophical  absurdities 
are  attributed  to  the  work,  and  represented  as  essential  to  its  theo- 
logical conclusions.  The  real  questions;  however,  are  purely  theo- 
logical, and  admit  of  no  solution,  but  by  the  appeal  of  faith  to  the 
Word  of  God.  The  first  of  these  is  as  to  the  moral  relation  which 
we  sustain  to  Adam's  sin  : — Are  we  therein  criminals,  or  only  vic- 
tims? And  like  to  it  is  the  other: — How  does  Christ's  righteous- 
ness become  ours  in  order  to  justification  ?  These  are  the  questions 
with  which  I  am  concerned,  and  in  the  presence  of  which  mere 

*  With  truly  admirable  ingenuity  the  review  is  so  written  as  to  avoid  giving 
its  thousands  of  readers,  on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic,  a  hint  that  the  peculiar 
teachings  of  the  reviewer  are  called  in  question  in  the  bcok  !  To  them,  his  atti- 
tude is  that  of  lofty  impartiality. 


metaphysical  speculations  are  of  secondary  importance.     In  fact 

n  the  lfn"r  •*".?'  '"'  *''""''™'  of  philosophyare  appropriated 
m  the  book  IS,  to  obviate  objections  arising  from  the  oppositions  of 
false  scence-to  show  that  the  deductions  of  a  trni 'philosophy 
harmomze  w.th  the  teachings  of  God's  word.  Were  every  nrin 
cjple  of  the  philosophy  utterly  overthrown,  still  would  I  cleave  to 
the  doctrines,  to  the  illustration  of  which  they  are  adduced-  be- 
eause  those  doctrines  do  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men  but  in 
the  testimony  of  God.  ' 

./  Z::Z"       "  '«'  ''^e™"',  necessary  to  notice  the  light  in  which 

Revi.^  T"  r"  'P'"'"'^"™  P"™ipk^  are  exhibited  in  the 
Keview  as  he  assault  upon  them  is  designed  and  calculated  to  dis- 
parage the  doctrines  with  which  they  are  associated.  First  amonl 
aemist  ecloctrineasto  that  which  is  designated  the  natu^eo' 

"The  word,  nature,  is  that  by  which  we  designate  the  permanent 
fTd™ tdTr''''  f  «'^^8-"-«.--P0rated  in  the  constitut  on 
and  define  the  several  species  of  living  things.     .  The  ,nh 

stances  were  at  the  beginning  endowed  with  forces,  which  are  dis^ 
mc  ive  and  ab.ing,  and  which  in  organic  nature  flow  distribi  .very 
m  continuous  order,  to  the  successive  generations  of  the  creatures 
Of  these  forces,  the  word  nature  is  the  expression.     In  its  prope 
use,  It  conveys  the  distinct  idea  of  permanent  indwelling  force 
expresses  the  sum  of  the  essential  qualities  or  efficienl  principl 

u:hir;''-f"'V"""'^  "'''"•'"  '»  "^  -bsi.„ce,as  « 
in  which  they  reside,  and  from  whence  they  operate.     .  The 

word  IS  not,  therefore,  expressive  of  a  mere  abstraction,  but'desig! 

consists  in  the  whole  sum  of  the  forces  which,  original  in  Adam 
are  perpetuated  and  flow  in  generation  to  his  seed  "*     That  tlS 
definition  should  be  the  subject  of  such  bitter  attack  as  it  hast 
curred  IS  very  surprising.     That  it  is  not  new,  it  would  be  sup  " 

phers.    That,  in  its  relation  to  theology,  it  is  not  peculiar  to  me 
wiU  appear  m  the  following  quotation  from  a  divine  of  the  Ugh"  t 

*The  Elohim  Revealed,  pp.  148^  149,  150. 


authority.  "By  nature^^^  says  Breckinridge,  "we  mean  the  sum  of 
all  the  forces,  spiritual,  moral,  intellectual  and  physical,  which 
make  up  our  being,  and  give  it  its  peculiar  character."*  This  defi- 
nition is  consistently  followed  throughout  my  work.  Thus,  in  dis- 
cussing the  principle  of  the  law  of  God,  it  is  remarked, — "The 
word  nature  we  have  formerly  defined  to  be  the  designation  of  a 
permanent  force,  dwelling  in  a  substance.  A  moral  nature  is  one, 
the  essential  characteristics  of  which  are  reason,  will,  and  the 
moral  sense  or  conscience.  .  .  .  The  proper  subject  of  a  moral 
nature  is  a  spiritual  substance.  In  no  other  mode  have  we  any 
reason  to  imagine  it  possible  for  it  to  exist."t  And  again,  in  another 
place: — "The  nature  comprehends  all  the  forces  which  are  proper 
to  the  person  in  which  it  subsists.  Among  these  are  not  only 
included  those  of  which  obligation  or  obedience  may  be  supposed, 
but  those  susceptibilities  upon  which  may  be  predicated  the  realiza- 
tion of  suffering,  the  endurance  of  punishment.  .  .  .  Were  it 
possible  to  take  away  the  nature,  and  yet  the  person  remain; — were 
it  possible  to  suppose  any  other  forces  proper  to  the  person  than 
all  its  proper  forces,"  &c.:|:  The  definition  thus  so  unambiguously 
given  and  often  reiterated,  is  by  our  reviewer  entirely  disregarded, 
and  the  whole  argument  of  the  review  goes  upon  the  assumption 
that  I  represent  the  nature  of  man  as  being  a  substance  derived 
from  Adam  and  inhering  in  his  seed.  On  this  point  two  or  three 
remarks  are  submitted. 

1.  As  between  Augustinian  realism  and  the  nominalism  of  Ros- 
celine  and  Abelard,  the  sympathies  of  the  author  are  unequivocally 
indicated  in  favor  of  tlie  former.  The  fact  is  stated  that  the  latter 
was  in  its  origin  identified  with  the  growth  of  Pelagianism  in  the 
mediaeval  church.  And  if  by  the  charge  of  realism  be  meant  no 
more  than  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  illustrious  father,  we 
should  readily  plead  guilty.  But  not  only  is  the  assertion  that  the 
realism  of  the  Greek  philosophy  involved  the  substantial  existence 
of  universals  a  very  questionable  assumption,  but  the  pretence  that 
this  idea  is  essential  to  or  recognized  in  the  doctrine  of  Augustine 
on  original  sin,  is  altogether  unwarranted,  as  any  one  may  see  by 
reference  to  his  statements  quoted  in  our  treatise. §  The  realism  of 
Augustine  is  that  of  causal  forces,  and  not  of  universal  substances. 


*  Knowledge  of  God,  Objectively  Considered,  p.  498. 

t  The  Elohim  Revealed,  pp.  236,  237.        t  lb.  p.  250.        ^  lb.  pp.  19,  49G. 


Furtlier,  the  attempt  to  disparage  by  such  an  impeachment  the 
theology  of  Augustine,  is  significant.  The  Reformed  church  has 
been  accustomed  to  boast  its  Augustinian  theology,  especially  on 
original  sin. 

2.  It  is  certain  that  a  nature  cannot  exist  nor  act  except  in  a 
substance ;  and  so  we  have  repeatedly  stated  in  our  treatise.  It  by 
no  means  follows,  however,  that  it  may  not  be  transmitted  without 
the  transmission  of  substance.  Momentum  can  only  be  predicated 
of  matter;  and  yet  the  familiar  illustration  of  the  series  of  sus- 
pended balls  proves  its  propagation  from  one  to  another,  without 
any  transmission  of  substance.  So  the  transmission  of  forces 
through  successive  generations  of  living  beings  does  not  imply,  as 
necessary  thereto,  any  conveyance  of  substance.  The  apostacy  of 
man's  nature  could  not  take  place  but  by  a  personal  act.  The  pro- 
pagation of  the  nature  conveys  to  other  persons  the  responsibility 
of  the  act,  although  not  committed  personally  by  them. 

3.  In  The  Elohim  Revealed,  the  nature  of  Adam  is  spoken  of 
as  "  an  objective  reality,"  and  not  a  mere  abstract  or  subjective 
conception.  This  phrase,  which  merely  expresses  the  fact  of  the 
real  existence  of  the  forces  which  the  word,  nature,  designates, 
seems  to  be  interpreted  by  the  reviewer  as  equivalent  to  an  asser- 
tion that  the  nature  is  a  substance.  The  momentum  which  conveys 
the  planets  through  their  orbits  is  not  a  mere  idea  in  the  mind,  but 
an  objective  reality  in  nature.  Must  it,  therefore,  of  necessity  be  a 
substance  ? 

4.  That  there  should  be  some  incautious  expressions  in  a  treatise 
so  extensive,  is  not  surprising.  Some  of  these,  as  the  result  has 
shown,  are  susceptible  of  being  tortured  into  a  meaning  which  the 
author  never  designed,  and  against  which  the  context  will  be  recog- 
nized by  impartial  criticism  as  sufficient  caution. 

5.  Although  the  manuscript  was  submitted  to  the  examination  of 
eminent  theologians  before  its  publication,  and  the  work  has  since 
been  reviewed  and  criticised  by  scholars  of  every  class,  no  sus- 
picion of  realism  (so-called)  was  suggested  in  any  quarter,  until  it 
was  announced  to  the  classes  in  the  seminary  at  Princeton,  by  one 
of  the  professors,  as  the  discovery,  elsewhere,  of  a  distinguished 
divine.  Subsequently,  the  reviews  at  Princeton  and  Columbia  made 
their  appearance ;  in  which,  simultaneously,  the  charge  was  made ; 
accompanied,  in  the  former,  by  an  abundant  citation  of  passages 
from  the  book,  but  without  any  indication  of  the  mode  in  which 


10 

the  obnoxious  doctrine  was  deduced  therefrom  ;  in  the  latter,  from 
the  pen  of  the  original  author  of  the  impeachment,  with  aa  explicit 
statement  of  the  ground  upon  which  it  was  based.  From  a  charge 
thus  originated  in  hostile  criticism  alone,  we  might  claim  immediate 
acquittal.  The  proof,  however,  which  is  attempted  in  the  Southern 
Review,  gives  us  the  means  of  exposing  its  fallacy,  and  enables  us 
to  appeal  to  the  professor  at  Columbia,  in  refutation  of  the  impeach- 
ment, as  endorsed  at  Princeton. 

After  full  citations  from   our   treatise,  Dr.  Thornwell  deduces 
the  following  as  its   doctrine: — "The   substance  of  the   soul,  as 
endowed  with  the  forces  which  realize  themselves  in  the  faculties 
and  energies  of  the  personal  consciousness — of  which  these  opera- 
tions are  the  signs  and  characteristics — that  substance  as  a  causal 
force,  which  underlies  them  all,  and  conditions  and  determines  them 
all,  that  substance  is  the  nature.     Or,  if  there  be  any  distinction 
between  them^  the  substance  is  the  ground,  and  the  nature,  the  causal 
energies  contained  in  it.     That  is,  the  soul,  considered  as  simple 
being,  may  be  called  substance ;  considered  as  a  cause,  or  endowed 
with  power,  it  is  nature ;  the  loord,  nature,  expressing  directly  the 
forces  ;  and,  substance,  that  in  which  they  inhere.     But  for  all  the 
purposes  of  speculation,  the  difference  is  purely  formal.     A  sub- 
stance to  human  thought  is  only  the  correlative  of  the  properties 
which  manifest  it."*     Such  is  the  conclusion  to  which  this  wj-iter 
comes,  as  the  result  of  a  careful  analysis  of  the  various  statements 
of  The  Elohim  Revealed,  on  the  subject.     In  the  passages  which 
we  have  italicised,  he  represents  clearly  and  correctly  the  doctrine 
of  the  book.     In  the  closing  sentence,  he  states  a  postulate  of  his 
own,  in  which  a  signal  fallacy  has  eluded  his  acuteness.     For  some 
of  "  the  purposes  of  speculation,  the  difference  between  substance 
and  nature  is  purely  formal."     But  it  is  by  no  means  true  in  all 
cases.     It  is  not  true  when  the  question  is  asked  whether  the  nature 
is  a  substance.     It  is  not  true  when  the  inquiry  is  as  to  the  pro- 
pagation of  nature.     Here  we  accept  an  argument  of  Dr.  Hodge, 
in  which,  aiming  at  us,  he  only  exposes  the  error  of  our  southern 
reviewer :  "  There  may  be  an  immaterial   principle  which  deter- 
mines the  species  of  every  plant  and  animal,  and  secures  its  per- 
manency ;  but  what  necessity  is  there  for  assuming  that  principle  to 
be  a  substance  numerically  the  same  with  the  first  of  each  kind  ? 

*  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  April,  1860,  p.  172. 


11 

If  the  chemical  properties  belonging  to  an  acorn,  or  the  germ  of  a 
nascent  animal,  may  be  the  same  in  kind,  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, without  assuming  the  transmission  of  a  chemical  substance 
why  may  not  the  principle  of  life  remain  permanent,  without  any 
such  transmission  of  substance?"*  Truly,  we  cannot  see  why. 
And  since  it  is  so,  our  reviewer  himself  being  judge,  wc  ask.  Why 
should  the  distinction  between  the  nature  and  substance  be  oblit- 
erated, as  it  is  in  the  argument  of  Dr.  Thornwcll ;  if  not  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  the  obnoxious  book  responsible  for  absurdities 
of  which  it  is  entirely  innocent?  It  appears,  then.  Dr.  Thornwell 
being  witness,  that  according  to  The  Elohim  Revealed,  nature  is  not 
a  substance,  but  a  force  dwelling  in  a  substance.  And  we  have  seen, 
upon  the  authority  of  Dr  Hodge,  that  the  proposition  is  erroneous, 
by  which  the  southern  reviewer  confounds  the  distinction  between 
the  nature  or  force,  and  the  substance  in  which  it  inheres.  And 
yet  this  constitutes  the  only  plausible  pretext  for  charging  the  book 
with  the  realism  which  is  attributed  to  it  by  these  writers. 

tiv^TnTtTV'  Hence  the  assertion,  that  upon  this  theory  Adam  and 
rLs.  '""""  his  race  are  one  substance.  "According  to  this  view 
humanity  is  one  substance,  in  which  inhere  certain  forces.  This 
substance  was  originally  in  Adam,  and  has  been  by  propagation 
communicated  to  all  his  descendants,  so  that  the  substance  with  its 
forces,  which  constitutes  them  what  they  are,  is  numerically  the  same 
as  that  which  was  in  him  and  made  him  what  he  was."t  "  The 
assumption  of  a  generic  human  nature,  as  an  objective  reality,  con- 
stituting all  men  numerically  one  in  substance  with  Adam,  is  a  pure 
figment,  unentitled  lo  any  weight  or  authority  in  determining  Christ- 
ian doctrine. "I  So  it  is;  and  in  the  same  category  is  to  be 
included  the  pretence  that  this  absurdity  is  taught  in  the  book. 
Besides  passages  which  we  have  already  quoted,  the  only  proof 
adduced  by  the  reviewer,  is  the  following  sentences : — "  The  human 
nature  consists  in  the  whole  sum  of  the  forces  which,  original  in 
Adam,  are  perpetuated  and  flow  in  generation  to  his  seed.  And 
our  oneness  of  nature  does  not  express  the  fact,  merely,  that  we  and 
Adam  are  alike ;  but  that  we  are  thus  alike,  because  the  forces  which 
are  in  us  and  make  us  what  we  are,  were  in  him,  and  are  numeri- 


*  Princeton  Review,  April,  1860,  p.  353.      t  Ibid,  p.  352.      |  Ibid,  p.  353. 


12 

cally  the  same  which  in  him  constituted  his  nature  and  gave  him  his 
likeness.'^ "  This  language  is  open  to  just  exception,  in  so  far  as  it  may 
seem  to  represent  the  forces  which  constitute  the  nature  of  an  indi- 
vidual of  the  posterity  of  Adam  to  be  formally  the  same  as  those  of 
Adam's  nature,  and  exhaustive  of  them.  The  intention  of  the  writer 
was  merely  to  assert  that  although  changed  in  form,  the  forces  of 
Adam's  seed  are  transmitted  from  him — that  forces  which  were  in  him 
were  the  cause  of  those  of  his  seed.  Here  we  reiterate  the  admission 
and  challenge  already  quoted  from  our  reviewer: — "  There  may  be 
an  immaterial  principle  which  determines  the  species  of  every  plant 
and  animal,  and  secures  its  permanency;  but  what  necessity  for 
assuming  that  principle  to  be  a  substance,  numerically  the  same 
with  the  first  of  each  kind  ?  "f  The  reviewer  does  not  then  ven- 
ture to  deny  the  existence  of  such  an  "  immaterial  principle,"  the 
very  thing  which  is  asserted  in  the  passages  which  he  quotes.  But 
he  demands: — "Wherein  does  this  assumed  numerical  identity 
exist?  Is  it  in  the  principle  of  life  ?  But  can  anyone  tell  what 
that  is?  Is  it  a  substance  ?  Has  human  skill  ever  yet  discovered 
what  life  is,  whether  in  plant  or  animal  ?  And  must  a  whole  sys- 
tem of  theology  be  founded  on  a  conjecture  as  to  its  nature  ?":{:  No, 
it  ought  not.  But  in  return,  we  venture  one  question,  which  may 
complete  the  series.  Hoes  our  reviewer  found  his  theology  in  the 
denial  of  the  existence  of  such  a  principle?  What  it  is,  may  be 
hard  to  say.     Hoes  he  therefore  require  us  to  forget  that  it  is? 

We  do  not  propose  here  to  defend  our  sentiments  on  identity  and 
the  generic  unity  of  the  human  race.  Those  who  may  be  curious 
on  the  subject,  will  find  the  discussion  in  the  work  in  question. 
Our  present  aim  is  to  rectify  the  misapprehensions  to  which  the 
statements  of  the  Review  may  give  rise,  as  to  what  they  are.  To 
this  purpose  a  brief  extract  will  serve : — 

^'  We  have  bad  occasion  to  observe  a  law  of  representation  wbieb  runs 
through  the  Scriptures,  and  is  developed  especially  in  the  cases  of  the 
headship  of  Adam  to  the  race,  and  the  believer  justified  in  Christ.  That 
principle  we  have  stated  to  be,  that  community  in  a  propagated  nature 
constitutes  such  a  oneness  as  immediately  identifies  the  possessor  in  the 
relations  of  that  nature  in  the  progenitor  whence  it  springs.  This 
principle  seems  to  be  but  one  particular,  under  the  general  proposition 
that  continuity  of  organic  force  constitutes  identity,  in  any  substance 

*  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  150.  t  Review,  p.  353.  I  Ibid,  p.  352. 


13 

whether  material  or  spiritual.  In  this  expression,  we  consider  an  organ- 
ism as  a  substance,  simple  or  compound,  clothed  with  its  distinctive  forces, 
constituting  it  an  efficient  cause ;  and  by  the  phrase,  continuity  of  organic 
force,  we  design  to  intimate  that  in  whatever  direction  those  forces  flow, 
and  to  whatever  extent,  they  operate  to  bind  the  substances  upon  which 
they  act,  in  a  relation  of  identity.  By  identity  is  of  course  not  meant 
absolute  numerical  oneness,  in  all  respects ;.  but  that  of  which,  to  given 
purposes,  the  same  proposition  may  be  predicated  immediately  and  per  se. 
Thus,  we  have  no  assurance  that  the  body  of  the  aged  man  contains 
among  all  its  material  elements,  a  particle  which  was  in  it  in  his  infancy. 
The  identity  is  predicated  upon  the  continuous  operation  of  those  vital 
forces  which  have  pervaded  and  built  it  up,  repaired  its  breaches  and 
determined  its  character.  So,  too,  of  the  tree  or  the  rock,  the  star  or  the 
system.  Again,  all  identities  are  not  of  the  same  order ;  as  there  is, 
for  example,  a  distinct  identity  belonging  to  each  limb  of  the  body,  and 
another  of  a  higher  grade  common  to  them  all  in  the  unity  of  the  body. 
These  grades  of  identity  are  determined  by  the  degree  to  which  the  sub- 
ordinate substance  is  pervaded  and  controlled  by  the  organic  forces 
whence  the  identity  is  predicated.  Thus,  forces  which  are  common  to  the 
solar  system  give  it  an  identity  of  one  grade,  comprehending  in  it  not 
only  the  planets  in  their  mass,  but  every  organism  and  every  atom  belong- 
ing to  any  of  them ;  all  of  which  are  embraced  in  the  common  forces  of 
gravitation,  repulsion,  and  so  on.  On  the  other  hand,  each  particular 
planet  has  its  more  intimate  identity,  constituted  by  the  addition  to  the 
forces  which  it  possesses  in  common  with  the  others,  of  those  which 
operate  more  immediately  upon  its  own  materials.  So  may  we  trace  a 
growing  intimacy  of  identity,  until  we  come  to  the  indivisible  molecules. 

"  So  it  is  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  world.  By  one  Spirit  are  believers 
all  baptised  into  one  body.  By  this  baptism,  no  one  loses  the  identity 
of  his  own  person  :  but  '  by  the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,' 
he  is  introduced  into  a  higher  identity — identity  in  Him  <  from  whom  the 
whole  body  fitly  joined  together,  and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint 
supplieth,  according  to  the  eifectual  working  in  the  measure  of  every 
part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love.' — 
Eph.  iv.  IG.  It  is  thus,  by  the  pervasive  power  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
moulding  and  controlling  the  whole  that  the  identity  is  wrought,  of  which 
Christ  so  remarkably  says,  '  That  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou.  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  may  be  one  in  us.  .  .  .  That 
they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one  ;  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that 
they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one.' — John  xvii.  21-23. 

"  Parallel  to  this  is  the  identity  which  we  sustain  to  the  first  Adam. 
By  birth  we  acquire  a  distinct  and  separate  personality,  having  an  identity 


14 

of  its  own,  of  the  same  grade  and  degree  as  was  that  of  Adam's  person. 
But  with  this  distinct  personality  there  is  associated  a  community  in 
Adam's  moral  nature,  by  virtue  of  the  continuity  of  forces  flowing  from 
him  to  us,  embracing  us  in  an  identity  with  his  nature,  and  involving  our 
communion  in  his  apostacy  from  Grod.  Hence,  the  Scripture  forms  of 
expression,  of  our  being  in  him,  sinning  in  him,  and  dying  in  him."* 

On  a  subject  so  abstruse,  it  were  futile  to  attempt  such  accuracy 
of  language  as  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  misapprehension,  or  be 
impregnable  to  hostile  criticism.  The  statement — that  the  causative 
principle  which  operates  in  generation  constitutes  a  bond  of  identity 
between  the  progenitor  and  those  of  whom  he  is  the  cause,  such  as 
to  involve  them  immediately  in  the  relations  and  responsibilities  of 
his  nature,  to  an  extent  proportionate  to  that  in  which  they  are 
pervaded  and  controlled  by  that  nature, — embodies  with  suflScient 
distinctness  and  fullness  the  doctrine  of  representative  union  or 
identity,  as  stated  with  perhaps  less  critical  accuracy  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  above  extract,  but  distinctly  developed  in  the  subsequent 
parts  of  it,  and  illustrated  throughout  the  volume. 

As  relating  to  the  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  head,  we  venture 
to  assert  that  this  doctrine  is  not  theory,  but  a  most  precious  testi- 
mony of  the  gospel.  In  the  parallel  case  of  the  first  Adam  and  his 
seed,  nothing  but  experience  of  the  fact  could  persuade  us  that  the 
Scripture  warrant  for  it  is  questionable.  In  its  other  relations  it 
would  seem  to  be  one  of  the  plainest  of  the  postulata  of  common 
sense.  And,  in  fact,  it  is  not  until  a  preposterous  caricature  has 
been  thrust  into  its  place,  that  our  reviewer  ventures  to  assail  it. 
By  taking  advantage  of  the  generality  of  the  statement  of  the  law 
of  representation  with  which  the  extract  begins,  and  disregarding 
the  careful  exposition  of  it  which  follows,  and  the  abundant  illus- 
trations which  the  work  exhibits,  he  finds  it  easy  to  demonstrate 
against  us  the  charge  of  excessive  stupidity  and  folly,  resulting  in  a 
climax  of  revolting  heresy. 

In  the  first  place,  as  we  have  seen,  by  nature  the  reviewer  repre- 
sents us  as  meaning  a  common  substance,  and  not,  as  defined  in  the 
book,  an  indwelling  force.  Again,  whereas  we  state  explicitly, 
that  "  by  identity  is  of  course,  not  meant,  absolute  numerical  one- 
ness, in  all  respects;  but  that  of  which  to  given  purposes  the  same 
proposition  may  be  predicated  immediately  and  per  se/' — it  only 


The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  494. 


15 

requires  the  omission  of  a  mere  monosyllabic,  to  make  us  teach  that 
absolute  numerical  oneness  is  the  very  thing  we  do  mean  ;  and  such 
is  the  light  in  which  the  reviewer  presents  us.  Further,  the  causa- 
tive principle  which  is  characteristic  of  propagation,  which  is  com- 
mensurate with  identity  and  determinate  of  it,  and  so  represented 
in  the  place  above  quoted  as  fundamental  and  essential  to  the  whole 
doctrine,  is  entirely  ignored ;  and  the  book  held  responsible  for  all 
the  consequences  resulting  from  the  omission. 

Of  the  manner  in  which  the  case  thus  made  out  inures  to  the  pur- 
poses of  the  review,  the  doctrine  respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  pre- 
sents a  signal  illustration.  "  If  he  was  truly  the  son  of  David,  accord- 
ing to  his  human  nature ;  if  he  was,  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of 
the  words,  the  seed  of  Abraham ;  and  if  community  of  nature  involves 
community  in  the  guilt  and  pollution  belonging  to  that  nature,  how 
are  we  to  avoid  the  inevitable,  although  shocking  conclusion,  that 
Christ  was  guilty  and  polluted  ?  ...  If  a  man  commits  a  crime 
he  is  guilty,  and  even  omnipotence  cannot  undo  the  deed.  If  it  is  true 
that  we  apostatized  in  Adam,  omnipotence  cannot  make  it  untrue. 
And  if  it  is  true  that  all  who  partake  of  Adam's  nature  shared  in 
his  apostasy,  and  are  morally  chargeable  with  its  guilt,  then  it  must 
be  true  of  Christ.  That  his  human  nature  sinned  in  Adam  is  a 
simple  fact  of  the  past,  according  to  the  theory  of  this  book ;  and  all 
the  power  in  the  universe  cannot  make  it  no  fact,"  &c.^ 

The  points  thus  urged,  so  far  from  refuting  the  doctrine  of  the 
book,  serve  to  establish  it.  If  the  human  nature  were  a  substantial 
entity  which  sinned  in  Adam,  and  that  substance  constituted  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  then  unquestionably  would  his  humanity 
have  been  guilty  and  corrupt.  But,  if,  instead  of  this,  the  doctrine 
of  the  book  be  truly  taken  and  candidly  traced,  it  solves  every 
difficulty  suggested.  As  already  shown,  that  doctrine  is,  that  a 
nature  is  a  causative  force  inhering  in  a  substance, — "  that  in  what- 
ever direction  those  forces  flow,  and  to  whatever  extent,  they 
operate  to  bind  the  substances  upon  which  they  act  in  a  relation  of 
identity," — and  that  there  are  various  grades  of  this  identity,  "  de- 
termined by  the  degree  to  which  the  subordinate  substance  is  per- 
vaded and  controlled  by  the  organic  forces  whence  the  identity  is 
predicated."  In  the  Lord  Jesus  there  were  two  natures,  human 
and  divine.     In  a  lower  degree,  he  was  identified  with  the  human 

*  Review,  p.  366. 


16 

race,  in  so  far  as  the  nature  of  Adam  was  the  subordinate  cause  of 
his  humanity,  his  body  and  soul.  But  that  nature  was  not  the 
cause  of  his  moral  attitude.  On  the  contrary,  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
the  efficient  principle  of  generative  activity  in  the  nature  of  the 
virgin,  producing  his  humanity;  and  his  whole  being  was  "per- 
vaded and  controlled  "  by  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  of  God ;  so 
that  upon  the  principles  of  the  book,  his  entire  person  was  natively 
identified  in  the  moral  attitude  of  that  nature,  both  as  relating  to 
the  sanctions  and  precepts  of  the  law. 

aiarge  of  Wc  shall  present  but  one  additional  illustration  of  the 
materialism.     ^^^^  ^^  justico  which  the  representations  of  the  review  . 
are  calculated  to  do  us,  before  passing  to  the  more  important  ques- 
tions of  theology,  which  are  at  issue.     On  page  359  of  the  Review, 
we  are  told  that  in  The  Elohim  Revealed,  "the  immediate  creation 
of  the  soul,  as  opposed  to  the  theory  of  propagation,  is  declared  to 
be  '  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Pelagian  system.'     On  page 
364,  he  [the  author]  complains  of  orthodox  theologians  as  uniting 
'  with  Pelagians  in  explaining  away  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures 
on  the  origin  of  the  soul,  in  obedience  to  the  dicta  of  an  intru- 
sive philosophy.'      The  doctrine  that  the  soul  is  an   immediate 
creation,  he  says,  'introduces  a  gross  and  revolting  dualism  into 
man's  nature.     As  originally  made,  Adam  comprehended  in  one 
being  the  two  distinct  elements  of  soul  and  body.     In  the  unity  of 
these  elements  there  subsisted  a  common  identity,  a  common  con- 
sciousness, common  moral  relations,  and  a  common  moral  character.' 
On  the  same  page  it  is  said,  'there  is  no  distinct  mention  of  the 
creation  of  the  soul  at  all ;  but  the  whole  style  of  the  narrative  (in 
Genesis)  seems  to  imply  that  it  was  created  within  the  body,  in  an 
original,  perfect,  and  inseparable  identification  with  it.' — p.  365.  This 
is  as  near  materialism  as  any  orthodox  writer  could  well  go.     Here 
is  a  denial  of '  dualism '  in  man's  nature;  and  the  assertion  of '  a  per- 
fect and  inseparable  identification  of  soul  and  body.'     Then,  the 
soul  and  body  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  or  at  least  inseparable, 
incapable  of  separate  existence.     This  is  the  doctrine,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  such  materialists  as  Priestley,  and  on  the  other  of  the  mys- 
tical school  of  modern  Germany,  as  shown  in  our  last  number."^ 

Our  statement  that  the  creation  theory  was  fundamental  to  the 
system  of  Pelagius,  is  a  very  innocent  allusion  to  a  historical  fact, 
the  proof  of  which  is  given  in  the  book.     Wiggers,  the  historian 

*  Kcvicw,  p.  359. 


17 

of  tliG  Pelagian  controversy,  thus  states  tlie  first  of  the  principles 
of  Pelag'ius'  system:  "  1.  A  propagation  of  sin  by  generation  is  by 
no  means  to  be  admitted.  This  physical  propagation  of  sin  can  be 
admitted  only  when  we  grant  the  propagation  of  the  soul  by  gene- 
ration. But  this  is  a  heretical  error;  consequently,  there  is  no 
original  sin.""^'  But  this  is  comparatively  a  trivial  matter.  We 
ask  the  reader  to  weigh  with  candor  the  following  extract  from  the 
book,  a  few  disjointed  sentences  of  which  constitute  the  ground  of 
charging  the  author  with  materialism. 

"  There  are  objections  which  appear  insurmountable  against  the  doc- 
trine that  the  soul  is  an  immediate  creation.  First,  It  introduces  a 
gross  and  revolting  dualism  into  man's  nature.  As  originally  made, 
Adam  comprehended  in  one  being  the  two  distinct  elements  of  body  and 
soul,  joined  together  in  a  union,  which  was  essential  to  their  normal  con- 
dition and  to  the  happiness  of  man — a  union  which  nothing  but  the  penal 
curse  could  have  dissolved.  In  the  unity  of  these  elements  there  sub- 
sisted a  common  identity,  a  common  consciousness,  common  moral  rela- 
tions, and  a  common  moral  character.  And  it  is  a  fact  not  without 
significance,  that  in  the  narrative  of  his  creation  there  is  no  intimation  of 
an  extraneous  creation  of  the  soul,  and  its  subsequent  insertion  in  the 
body.  '  The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  was  a  living  soul.' 
We  behold  the  dust  moulded  into  form  and  symmetry,  but  breathless 
and  lifeless.  We  look  again,  and  the  inanimate  clay  is  warm  with  vital 
heat ;  the  breath  of  life  fills  the  lungs ;  the  light  of  intelligence  beams 
from  the  eye,  and  an  immortal  spirit  dwells  within.  Thus,  although 
diverse  elements  enter  into  his  being,  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  or  coun- 
tenance any  conception  at  variance  with  the  most  perfect  and  insepa- 
rable unity.  We  read  nothing  to  sustain  the  assertion  of  Turrettin,  that 
Adam's  '  soul  came  extrinsically  through  creation,  and  was  infused  into 
his  body  by  the  breath  of  God.'  It  was  not  his  soul,  but  his  breath  which 
was  breathed  into  his  nostrils ;  and  of  any  extrinsic  creation  of  the  soul, 
and  its  subsequent  infusion  into  the  body,  we  have  no  intimation.  In 
fact  there  is  no  distinct  mention  of  the  creation  of  the  soul  at  all ;  but 
the  whole  style  of  the  narrative  seems  to  imply  that  it  was  created  within 
the  body,  in  an  original,  perfect  and  inseparable  identification  with  it. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  by  the  doctrine  which  we  here  oppose,  we  are  intro- 
duced to  man  as  comprehending  in  his  person  two  distinct  and  separate 
individuals,  two  several  beings.  They  are  described  as  independent  in 
the  sources  and  even  in  the  time  of  their  origin ;  as  possessing  severally 

*The  Elohim  Revealed:  p.  17 j  which  see  for  the  evidence  from  the  pen  of 
Pelagius  himself. 


18 

complete  constitutions,  prior  to  and  irrespective  of  their  connection  with 
each  other ;  as  having  originally  distinct  and  contrasted  moral  characters ; 
as  bound  to  each  other  by  a  relation,  not  essential  and  ab  origine,  but 
accidental  and  secondary,  by  virtue  of  a  factitious  and  mechanical  union ; 
and  when  thus  brought  together,  acting  as  distinct  individuals  upon  each 
other  as  extraneous  and  antagonistic  influences ;  so  that  in  the  process, 
the  soul,  hitherto  uncorrupted,  is  defiled  and  enslaved  in  sin,  in  conse- 
quence of  its  connection  with  the  body,  which  derives  and  conveys  to  it 
corruption  of  nature  from  our  apostate  parents. 

"  It  results  from  these  views  that  Adam's  soul  and  body  were  not 
inseparably  united ;  that  is  to  say,  he  was  not  created  immortal ;  and  that 
the  separation  which  takes  place  at  death,  so  far  from  being  a  penal  condi- 
tion— an  unhappy  effect  of  the  curse  against  sin,  should  rather  be  regarded 
as  a  desirable  estate — the  restoration  of  the  soul  to  its  native  and  normal 
condition  ;  and  that  the  soul,  so  far  from  anticipating  the  resurrection 
with  desire  and  joy,  should  rather  recoil  from  it,  as  from  the  resumption 
of  broken  and  cast-off  fetters,"  &c.* 

Such  and  more  to  the  same  effect  is  the  language  from  which  the 
reviewer  culls  an  expression  or  two,  which  he  declares  are  "  as  near 
materialism  as  any  orthodox  writer  could  well  go.  Here  is  a  denial 
of '  dualism '  in  man's  nature ;  and  the  assertion  of '  a  perfect  and 
inseparable  identification '  of  soul  and  body.  Then,  the  soul  and 
body  are  one  and  the  same  thing ;  or,  at  least  inseparable,  incapable 
of  separate  existence."  We  pray  the  reader  to  observe  what  kind 
of  dualism  it  is  that  we  deny  to  man,  and  with  it  compare  the  sense 
in  which  the  reviewer  would  have  us  understood.  Observe  the 
manner  in  which  our  statement  in  reference  to  the  original  insepa- 
rableness  of  body  and  soul,  the  native  immortality  of  man,  is  mis- 
applied to  his  present  condition,  as  under  the  curse ;  in  order  to 
induce  the  impression  that  we  represent  body  and  soul  as  now 
inseparable,  "  incapable  of  separate  existence ; "  although  our  ex- 
press language  to  the  contrary  lay  open  before  the  writer's  eyes. 
And  let  our  readers  decide  upon  what  principle  to  account  for  the 
manner  in  which  the  revieAver  seems  to  interpret  the  phrase,  "  in- 
separable identification,"  as  though  it  meant  the  contradictory  of 
distinct  subsistence.f     The  last  sentence  of  this  extraordinary  criti- 

*  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  365. 

t Webster  defines  "Identify:  1.  To  ascertain  or  prove  to  be  the  same.  2. 
To  make,  to  be  the  same ;  to  unite  or  combine  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  one 
interest,  purpose,  or  intention."  He  quotes  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason  as  saying  that 
"Paul  has  identified  the  two  ordinances,  circumcision  and  baptism;"  and  the 
British  ministry  in  1805,  declaring  that  a  certain  treaty  "identified  Spain  with 
the  republican  government  of  -France." 


19 

cism  constitutes  an  appropriate  and  harmonious  crown  to  the  whole : 
"Dr.  Baird,  however,  is  so  characteristically  incorrect  and  nndis- 
criminating  in  his  language,  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  he 
intended,  even  when  he  wrote  what  has  just  been  quoted,  to  assert 
that  the  body  and  soul  are  identical,  or  even  that  they  are  insepa- 
rable." We  leave  it  to  superior  discernment  to  judge  how  the 
writer  of  this  sentence  designed  it  to  be  interpreted  by  his  thousands 
of  readers.  Are  they  to  understand  that  he  was  actually  at  a  loss 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  book  in  the  place  from  whence  he  quotes, 
or  even  of  the  expressions  which  he  cites?  And  if  this  be  so,  of 
what  value  are  the  criticisms  of  such  a  pen  ?  In  any  case,  what  is 
to  be  thought  of  the  writer,  who  upon  such  grounds  as  these,  does 
not  hesitate  to  stab  the  character  of  a  minister  of  Christ,  by  the 
charge  of  symbolizing  with  the  materialism  of  Priestley  and  the 
mysticism  of  Germany? 

TJie  Origin  As  to  our  doctrinc  on  the  origin  of  the  soul,  we  ven- 
of  the  Soul.  t^j,Q  ^Q  Qg-g^.  i-i^g  following,  from  The  United  Presbyterian 
Review,  as  a  contrast  to  the  severity  of  this  writer.  It  is  from  the 
pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  T.  Cooper,  of  the  United  (late  Associate) 
Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia.  The  name  is  a  suiEcient  pledge 
of  the  weight  and  value  of  the  judgment : — 

"  We  have  never  seen,  and  we  question  if  there  is  anywhere  to  he 
found  a  more  able  and  thorough  discussion  of  this  abstruse  point,  than 
the  one  with  which  we  are  ^jresented  in  this  chapter.  His  reasoning  on 
this  subject  occupies  no  less  than  fifty  pages  of  the  book,  and  after  giving 
it  two  careful  readings,  we  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  the  feelings  of 
admiration  with  which  the  exhibition  of  the  author's  skill  and  logical 
powers  in  the  treatment  of  this  subject  has  inspired  us.  All  our  precon- 
ceived views  and  feelings  were  in  direct  antagonism  with  the  position  here 
taken  with  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  soul ;  but  we  have  been  forced  to 
yield.  We  are  still  conscious  of  a  feeling  of  repugnance  to  the  conclu- 
sion here  arrived  at ;  but  the  author  has  so  fortified  his  position  at  every 
point,  by  the  inductive  mode  in  which  he  has  treated  the  subject,  that  we 
see  not  how  it  is  in  the  power  of  reason  to  overthrow  it.  We  have  sought 
for  some  unguarded  point  on  which  to  make  out  attack,  but  in  vain."*' 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  able  and  extended  review, 
from  which  the  above  extract  is  taken,  there  is  no  trace  of  sus- 
picion that  the  book  is  chargeable  with  the  realism,  materialism  and 
other  atrocious  heresies  which  are  attributed  to  it  by  the  Repertory. 

*  United  Presbyterian  Review,  April,  1860,  p.  245. 


ourDacirine       ^^^^  ^G  luust  tum  to  tlic  tliGological  quGstioiis,  wliich 
ofhnputation.  ^re  tliG  PGal  issuGs  bctwcGii  us  and  our  rcviGwer. 

On  imputation,  tliG  rcviGWGr  says: — "  TIig  gGncral  principlo  is 
laid  down  that  nothing  can  bG  imputed  to  a  man  which  is  not  really 
his  own ;  his  own — that  is,  not  on  the  ground  of  a  legal  relation, 
but  his  own  morally,  as  constituting  his  personal  character."-  In 
support  of  this  representation,  he  quotes  two  or  three  sentences 
from  a  discussion  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works, 
concerning  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  that  he  confounds 
tho  principles  of  that  covenant  with  those  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
Neither,  however,  in  those  places,  nor  elsewhere,  is  the  principle 
to  be  found  which  is  here  charged  upon  us.  In  the  very  definition 
of  imputation,  the  reverse  is  expressly  asserted ;  and  in  the  whole 
doctrine  of  the  book  the  principle  of  the  definition  is  consistently 
sustained.  After  a  discussion  of  the  nature  of  imputation,  we  thus 
sum  up  the  result: — "Imputation,  then,  is  the  finding  of  the  facts 
upon  a  judicial  investigation — the  entering  of  the  verdict,  by  which 
the  case  is  defined  in  its  true  character;  a  comparison  of  wliich 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law  constitutes  the  ground  of  the 
decision  of  the  judge,  either  of  approval  or  condemnation.  In  this 
imputation  the  case  is  never  viewed  or  represented  in  any  other 
light  than  precisely  as  it  is.  For  example:  it  does  not  consider 
him  as  a  personal  sinner — an  immediate  transgressor — who  is  only 
guilty  in  the  person  of  another,  his  representative ;  nor  does  it 
account  him  to  he  righteous,  who,  though  chargeable  with  no  per- 
sonal dereliction,  has  transgressed  in  the  person  of  another.  In 
short,  in  imputation,  a  faithful  record  is  made  of  the  case,  precisely 
as  it  is,  in  all  its  aspects  and  elements."t 

In  respect  to  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  the  reviewer  says  of 
us: — "He  devotes  a  Avhole  section  to  prove  that  his  view  is  not 
identical  with  that  of  Placaius.  Tliis  was  the  more  necessary  as 
he  adopts  all  the  princij^les  on  which  that  doctrine  is  founded,  and 
urges  all  the  arguments  against  immediate  imputation  which  were 
ever  advanced  by  Placasus,  or  by  Pelagians,  Socinians  or  Remon- 
strants. His  doctrine  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,"  &c.  And 
yet,  before  the  page  is  finished,  we  are  told  that — "  Wherein  he 
differs,  or  supposes  he  differs  from  this  doctrine,  [that  of  Placasus,] 
he  deceives  himself  with  words.  He  does  not  see  that  what  he 
says  means  nothing.  He  makes  distinctions  where  there  is  no  dif- 
ference, and  supposes  himself  to  be  saying  sometliing  when  he  is 

*  Review,  p.  368.  t  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  472. 


21 

saying  nothing,"  &cr  If  the  reader  should  hesitate  to  accept, 
in  its  whole  sweeping  extent,  the  assertion,  that  we  have  urged 
"a// the  arguments  against  immediate  imputation  which  tt'ere  ever 
advanced  by  Placajus,  or  by  Pelagians,  Socinians  or  Remonstrants," 
we  can  assure  him  that  it  is  just  as  true  as  that  we  have  assailed 
the  doctrine  at  all.  The  reason  of  our  argument  to  prove  that  our 
doctrine  was  not  that  of  Placaeus  was,  that  the  periodicals  of  the 
New  School,  seizing  upon  a  hint  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Re- 
view, were  ringing  the  changes  upon  the  assertion  that  our  doctrine, 
as  set  forth  in  Breckinridge's  Theology,  was  Placeanism.  And  the 
argument  of  the  "  whole  section,"  to  which  the  reviewer  alludes, 
consists  entirely  in  the  quotation  of  certain  passages  from  Breckin- 
ridge, with  parallel  citations  from  De  Moor's  Commentary  upon 
Marck,  and  from  Hoornbeek,  who  "plant  themselves  upon  our  very 
position  as  the  ground  of  defence  against  the  objections  of  those 
who  denied  immediate  imputation. "f  What  that  position  is,  we 
cannot  state  more  briefly  and  clearly  than  in  the  language  of  Samuel 
Rutherford,  a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  "We  sinned 
intrinsically  in  Adam,  as  parts,  as  members,  as  being  in  his  loins ; 
and  we  are  thence,  '  by  nature,  children  of  wrath.' " — Eph.  ii :  3.J 
Hence  his  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  not  contrary  to,  but  in  precise 
accordance  with  the  fact.  "  We  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him 
in  his  first  transgression."  It  is  imputed  to  us  in  the  very  sense  in 
which  it  is,  in  fact,  ours — by  virtue  of  Adam's  causative  i^elation  to 
us,  and  the  law  of  representative  union,  already  considered.  Thus, 
ours  in  its  penal  demerit,  it  is  equally  ours  in  its  criminal  enormity, 
which  is  the  ground  upon  which  the  penalty  is  justly  denounced  and 
enforced. 

The  Review-       Thus  far  WO  havc  merely  sought  to  rectify  the  false 

«r     confounds  j  o  •J 

Law  §r  Grace,  imprcssions  which  the  representations  of  our  reviewer 
are  calculated  to  make.  It  is  due,  however,  both  to  ourselves  and  to 
the  cause  of  truth,  to  call  attention  distinctly  to  the  precise 
theological  position  from  which  the  professor  assails  us — to  the 
peculiarities  of  his  own  system,  zeal  for  which  has  given  the  review 
its  hostile  character.  It  may  be,  as  the  reviewer  states,  that  the 
author  "  makes  distinctions  where  there  is  no  difierence,  and  sup- 
poses himself  to  be  saying  something  when  he  is  saying  nothing." 
In  what  follows,  we  shall  point  out  what  appear  to  us  distinctions 

*Kevicw,  p.  346.  tThe  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  505. 

t Rutherford,  in  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  408. 


22 

whicli  are  vital  to  the  gospel  sclieme,  and  which  are  disregarded  or 
obliterated  by  the  reviewer. 

That  Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ,  Paul  assures  us ;  and  that  the 
parallel  does  not  hold  in  all  respects,  he  further  testifies,  (Rom.  v : 
14,  15,)  and  is  also  a  necessary  inference,  from  the  fact  that  Adam 
was  a  creature, — the  second  Adam,  the  coequal   Son  of  God;  and 
that,  under  the  covenant  in  which  the  former  stood,  the  dispensation 
is  of  debt  under  law ;  whilst  the  covenant  of  which  Christ  is  surety 
is,  in  its  relation  to  man,  characteristically  of  free  gift  by  grace. 
The  eternal  covenant  was  prior  to,  and  determinate  of,  the  assump- 
tion of  humanity  and  actual  headship  to  the  elect  by  the  Son  of 
God.     The  covenant  of  works  was  subsequent  to,  and  predicated 
upon  the  creation  of  Adam's  person,  invested  with  the  office  of 
parental  head  of  the  race.     The  provisions  made  with  the  first 
Adam  had  respect  to  a  seed  which  were  already  in  him  intrinsically, 
as  the  natural  and  involuntary  fountain  and  cause  of  their  being. 
Those  embraced  in  the  covenant  of  grace  had  respect  to  a  seed  who 
were  not  yet  in  Christ,  and  whose  ultimate  inbeing  is  consequent 
upon  the  supernatural  power  of  Christ's  will,  exercised  in  their 
regeneration.     The  condemnation  which  passes  on  all,  under  the 
violated  covenant  of  works,  passes,  therefore,  on  none  Avho  were 
not  by  nature  in  Adam  in  the  transgression ;  whilst  the  justification 
which  is  bestowed  under  the  covenant  of  grace  is  to  those,  none  of 
whom  are  in  Christ  otherwise  than  contrary  to  nature,  by  trans- 
forming grace.     The  one  awards  sentence,  according  to  the  desert 
of  the  creature.     The  other  bestows  salvation,  according  to  the 
goodness  of  God.     The  fundamental  distinction  between  law  and 
grace,  which  is  thus  traceable  in  the  whole  doctrine  of  God,  is,  in 
some  of  its  most  important  points,  obliterated  in  the  criticisms  and 
excluded  from  the  system  of  our  reviewer.     Of  this  the  evidence  is 
abundant.     In  The  Elohim  Revealed,  the  ground  is  taken  that, 
since  our  relation  to  Adam  and  to  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
for  his  sin,  is  under  the  covenant  of  works,  the  criterion  of  which  is 
the  law,  it  follows,  that  we  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  first 
transgression,  except  on  the  ground  that  we  are  truly  criminal  in 
that  sin, — that  God  regards  and  treats  us  as  sinners,  because  we 
are  sinners.     Upon  this  our  reviewer  remarks : — "  Then,  by  parity 
of  reason,  he  cannot  regard  the  personally  unrighteous  as  righteous; 
he  cannot  justify  the  ungodly.     Then,  what  is  to  become  of  us  sin- 
ners ?     The  objections  against  the  imputation  of  sin  bear  with  all 
their  force  against  the  imputation  of  righteousness.     ...     A 


23 

fourth  objection  to  his  doctrine  is,  it  destroys  the  analogy  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  or  it  necessitates  the  adoption  of  the  doctrine  of 
subjective  justification.    We  must  either  deny  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
(as  alienum  peccatum)  stands  in  a  rehation  to  our  condemnation 
analogous  to  that  in  which  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  distin- 
guished from  our  own,  stands  to  our  justification ;  or  we  must  admit 
the  analogy  to  be,  that  as  we  derive  a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam, 
and  are  on  that  account  condemned,  so  we  derive  a  holy  nature  from 
Christ,  and  are  on  the  ground  of  that  nature  justified."*     We  do 
not  here  pause  to  dwell  on  the  error  of  the  assumption  that  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  made  contrary  to  fact.     We 
are  not  "regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,"  in  ourselves;  but— in 
precise  accordance  Avith  the  fact— as  persons  who,  in  themselves 
sinners,  are  ingrafted  into  and  one  with  their  righteous  Head.    But 
is  it  so,  tliat  our  condemnation  in  Adam  is  as  gratuitous  as  is  our 
justification  in  Christ?     Is  it  so,  that  the  cross  of  Christ  sheds  no 
new  light  upon  the  government  of  God ; — that  the  covenant  of 
grace  adds  no  new  principles  to  those  which  were  embodied  in  the 
institutes  of  Eden  ?     Are  we  no  more  deserving  of  the  death  which 
Adam  incurred,  than  of  the  gift  of  life  which  Christ  bestows  ?  This 
doctrine  is  reasserted  again  and  again  by  the  reviewer.     "  The 
main  point,"  says  he,  "in  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  A_dam,  as 
presented  in  the  theology  of  the  Protestant  Church,  and  as  exhibited 
by  the  apostle  is,  that  as  in  the  case  of  Christ  his  righteousness,  as 
something  neither  done  by  us  nor  wrought  in  us,  is  the  judicial 
ground  of  our  justification,  with  Mdiich  inward  holiness  is  connected 
as  an  invariable  consequence ;  so  in  the  case  of  Adam,  his  offence 
as  something  out  of  ourselves,  a  peccatum  alienum,  is  the  judicial 
ground  of  the  condemnation  of  our  race ;  of  which  condemnation, 
spiritual  death,  or  inward  corruption  is  tlie  expression  and  the  con- 
sequence.    It  is  this  principle  which  is  fundamental  to  the  Protes- 
tant theology,  and  to  the  evangelical  system,  in  the  form  in  which 
it  is  presented  in  the   Bible,  which  is  strenuously  denied  by  Dr. 
Baird."t  Again  :  "  Our  author  teaches  that  none  but  sinners  can  be 
punished ;  and  by  sinners  he  means  those  chargeable  with  moral 
criminality  and  pollution."     In  proof,  the  reviewer  cites  several 
passages,  closing  with  the  following :    "  The  doctrine  involved  in 
the  justice  of  God,  and  proclaimed  in  his  word,  is,  that  every  intel- 
ligent creature  shall  be  dealt  with  in  precise  accordance  with  his 
works,  [and  yet  the  author  expects  to  be  saved !]  under  the  provi- 

*Review,  p.  344.  tibid,  p.  341. 


24 


sions  of  the  law  and  the  covenant  therein  incorporated.  That  law 
provides  that  the  sinner,  [he  who  is  chargeable  with  crime  and 
moral  turpitude,]  and  the  sinner  only,  shall  be  punished,  and  that 
m  precise  proportion  to  the  enormity  of  his  sins."-  The  lauf'-uao-e 
thus  quoted  from  the  book  (p.  489)  constitutes  part  of  the  cliscus- 
sion  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  imputed,  which,  of  necessity, 
comes  under  the  provisions  of  tlie  legal  covenant,  and  is  so  treated. 
Into  an  extract  from  this  discussion  does  our  reviewer  interpolate 
tlie  exclamation,  "and  jet  the  author  expects  to  be  saved!"  Yes! 
he  does  cherish  that  blessed  hope.  But  not  by  the  works  of  the 
law,  nor  at  its  bar.  "  Ye  are  become  dead  to  the  law  by  the  body 
of  Christ,  that  ye  should  be  married  to  another."  Christ's  people 
will  never  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  the  law. 


er^%he7rTof  "^^^^  scntiments  of  our  reviewer,  which  we  have  just 
Original  Sin.  illustrated,  are  followed  out  by  him  to  their  legitimate 
results  in  relation  to  original  sin.  "  We  sinned  in  Adam  in  the 
same  sense  that  we  died  in  .Christ. "f  His  sin  was  to  us  alienum 
peccafum—a  foreign  crime.  "  This  doctrine  does  not  include  the 
idea  of  a  mysterious  identity  of  Adam  and  his  race ;  nor  that  of  a 
transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to  liis  descendants.  It 
does  not  teach  that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  tlie  sin 
of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of 
his  posterity.  Neither  does  it  imply,  in  reference  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  that  his  righteousness  becomes  personally  and  inhe- 
rently ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  transferred 
from  him  to  believers.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us 
of  remorse ;  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  no  ground  of  self-com- 
placency in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed.  This  doctrine  merely  teaches, 
that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  representative  and  natural,  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  his  sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,— that 
is,  of  their  subjection  to  penal  evils. ".t  The  reviewer  charges  us  with 
joining  with  Placc^us,  Remonstrants,  Pelagians  and  Socinians,  in 
assailing  the  doctrine  of  immediate  imputation.  We  pray  the  reader 
to  compare  the  above  with  the  following  statement  of  Turrettin. 
"  At  first  the  Remonstrants  spake  ambiguously,  so  that  it  Avas  un- 
certain what  position  they  assumed.  But  afterward,  in  their  Apo- 
logy, chapter  vii.,  they  plainly  show  themselves  to  favor  the  Soci- 
nians  ;^  retaining,  indeed,  the  name  of  imputation,  but  taking  away 
the  thing  itself,  whilst  they  declare  'the  sin  of  Adam  to  be  imputed 

^Review,  p.  370.  fibid,  p.  340. 

t  Hodge  on  the  Romans,  12mo.  1858,  p.  135. 


25 

by  God  to  his  posterity;  not  as  tliongli  he  held  them  to  be  really 
guilty  of  the  same  sin  and  crime  with  Adam,  but  as  he  willed  them 
to  be  born  subject  to  the  same  evil  to  which  Adam  rendered  him- 
self obnoxious  by  sin.'  ""^  The  designation  of  Adam's  sin,  as,  to 
us,  peccatum  alienum,  originated  with  Pelagius;  in  reply  to  whom, 
Augustine  says,  that  "  it  was,  indeed,  another's,  when  those  who 
when  born,  were  to  bear  it,  did  not  yet  exist ;  but  now,  by  carnal 
generation,  it  belongs  to  those  to  whom  it  has  not  yet  been  forgiven 
through  the  spiritual  regeneration."t  The  Pelagian  phraseology 
was  adopted  by  the  Eemonstrants  (see  their  Apology,  &c.)  and 
repudiated  by  the  Reformed  writers.  According  to  the  West- 
minster divines,  the  sin  is  not  peccatum  alienum,  but  commune. 
"  We  sinned  in  him." 

The  corruption  of  our  nature  was  the  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin.  But  how?  "Our  depraved  nature,"  says  our  reviewer,  "is 
the  penal  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  not  of  ours;  just  as  our  holi- 
ness is  the  gracious  gift  for  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  some- 
thing self-originated  and  self-deserved.":}:  Here  the  parallel  is  not 
well  sustained.  Upon  the  principles  of  the  Review,  if  depravity 
is  the  puni:^,hment  which  we  incur  by  being  regarded  and  treated  as 
sinners,  then  the  sanctification  of  believers  is  the  reward  to  which 
they  become  entitled  by  being  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous; 
the  regarding  and  treating  may  be  gracious,  but  the  sanctification 
is  of  debt.  Not  only  is  depravity  represented  as  a  penal  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  sin,  but  it  is  so  represented  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  idea  that  it  is  a  consequence  naturally  flowing  out  of  the  sin. 
"  The  corruption  of  nature  derived  from  Adam  is  not,  as  Dr.  Baird, 
with  strange  confusion  of  thought  persists  in  regarding  it,  a  physio- 
logical fact,  but  a  fact  in  the  moral  government  of  God.  Our 
author  treats  it  as  a  question  of  physics,  belonging  to  the  general 
category  of  propagation,  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  what 
he  calls  'the  mysteries  of  generation;'  ignoring  the  distinction 
between  physical  laws§  and  the  principles  of  God's  dealings  with 
rational  creatures. "||  If  the  reader  is  startled  at  the  seeming 
indelicacy  of  the  phrase  "mysteries  of  generation,"  here  attributed 
to  us,  we  are  happy  to  assure  him  that  he  will  not  find  it  in  the 
book.     It  is  of  the  coinage  of  our  reviewer.     But  the  important 

*Turrettini  Inst.  Theol.,  L.  ix.,  Qu.  ix:  3. 

tAug.  Do  Pec.  Mer.,  Lib.  iii:  7,  8.  t  Review  p.  359. 

^  The  reviewer  writes  as  though  physics  and  physiology  were  convertible 
terms  ! 

II  Review,  p.  340. 


26 

matter  is,  that  the  idea  of  native  depravity  being  a  fact  in  the 
moral  government  of  God,  is  here  represented  as  contradictory  to 
the  supposition  that  it  is  a  physiological  fact.  How  far  this  position 
is  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Job's  friends,  who  thouglit  it 
impossible  to  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean — with  the 
lamentation  of  David  in  the  fifty-jBrst  Psalm — or  with  the  testimony 
of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  (John  iii:  6,  7,)  we  will  not  pause  to  in- 
quire. We  had  supposed  that  the  laws  of  nature  were  from  that 
same  God  who  wields  the  sceptre  of  moral  government ;  and  that 
they  are  mutually  adapted  to  each  other,  as  parts  of  one  great 
whole.  Further;  we  know  of  but  two  classes  of  causes  of  pheno 
mena,  to  wit:  natural  laws,  otherwise  designated  second  causes,  and 
the  immediate  power  of  God.  The  moral  government,  therefore, 
as  contradistinguished  from  physiological  laws,  can  be  referred  to 
no  cause  other  than  the  immediate  power  of  God.  Thus  is  he 
made  to  be  the  author  of  our  depravity.  The  process  traced  by 
the  reviewer  is  circuitous;  but  the  result  to  which  he  comes  is  this, 
as  a  few  citations  will  show.  Says  he :  "  On  the  ground  of  the  per- 
sonal sin  of  Adam,  as  the  representative  of  the  race,  God  withdrew 
from  men  his  favor  and  spirit ;  they  thereby  lost  his  image  and 
became  inwardly  depraved.""  "  It  is  enough  for  all  the  purposes 
of  his  [Paul's]  argument,  that  that  sin  [Adam's]  ^vas  the  ground 
of  the  loss  of  the  divine  favor,  the  withliolding  of  divine  influence, 
and  the  consequent  corruption  of  our  nature. "f  "These  [Reformed] 
confessions  teach  that  original  righteousness,  as  a  punishment  of 
Adam's  sin,  was  lost,  and  hy  that  defect^  the  tendency  to  sin,  or 
corrupt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature,  is  occasioned.  Though 
they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being  first  negative,  i.  e.,  the  loss  of 
righteousness,  and  secondly,  positive,  or  corruption  of  nature,  yet 
by  the  latter  they  state  is  to  be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  any 
thing  in  itself  sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil, 
resulting  from  the  loss  of  righteousness.  .  .  .  [Goodwin,]  in 
common  with  the  Reformers,  represents  original  sin  as  having  a 
positive  as  well  as  a  negative  side.  This,  however,  results  from  the 
active  nature  of  the  soul.  If  there  is  no  tendency  to  the  love  and 
service  of  God,  there  is  from  this  very  defect  a  tendency  to  self 
and  sin."§ 

Here  it  will  be  seen  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  divine  favor  and 
withholding  of  divine  influence  is  viewed  as  the  cause  of  tlie  loss 

*  Review,  p.  342.  IHodge  on  the  Romans,  p.  135. 

JThe  italics  are  the  Commentator's  own.      §  Hodge  on  the  Romans,  p.  136. 


27 

of  original  righteousness.  "  God  withdrew  from  men  his  favor  and 
Spirit;  they  Merely  lost  his  image."  Further:  original  righteous- 
ness is  supposed  to  be  of  such  a  nature  that  its  loss  is  not,  of  itself, 
a  depravation  of  the  soul.  It  is  but  one  of  two  causes  of  depravity, 
of  which  the  other  is  the  activity  of  the  moral  nature.  Prior  to 
the  action  of  this  cause  there  maybe  no  original  righteousness; 
but  there  is  as  little  of  corruption  or  moral  turpitude.  The  soul 
has  no  part  in  Adam's  turpitude,  and  has  yet  generated  none  in 
itself.  Not  until  the  activity  of  the  moral  nature  comes  into  ope- 
ration is  depravity  developed.  Further:  this  cause  is  supposed  to 
lie  in  abeyance  for  a  time,  however  brief.  In  order  to  establish 
the  doctrine  that  our  relation  to  Adam's  sin  is  merely  penal  and 
not  criminal,  we  are  assured  no  less  than  three  times  in  succession, 
in  the  commentary  on  the  Eomans,  that  the  death  of  infants  is  not 
demanded  by  the  law  of  nature  written  in  the  heart.  -The  law 
or  covenant  which  brings  death  on  all  men,"  [according  to  Paul's 
argument,  in  Rom.  v:  12,  &c.]  "is  not  the  law  of  Moses,  because 
multitudes  died  before  that  was  given,  (v.  14.)  Nor  is  it  the  law 
of  nature  written  upon  the  heart,  since  multitudes  die  who  have 
never  violated  even  that  law,  (v.  14.)"  Again:  "Neither  is  the 
violation  of  the  law  of  nature  sufficient  to  explain  the  fact  that  all 
men  are  subject  to  death,  because  even  those  die  who  have  never 
broken  that  law."  '-This  universality  in  the  infliction  of  penal 
evil  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  the  violation  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  since  men  were  subject  to  such  evil  before  that  law 
was  given ;  nor  yet  on  account  of  the  violation  of  the  more  general 
law  written  on  the  heart,  since  even  they  are  subject  to  this  evil 
who  have  never  personally  sinned  at  all.  We  must  conclude, 
therefore,  that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  account 
of  the  sin  of  Adam."* 

Thus  it  appears  upon  the  showing  of  our  reviewer,  that  the 
infants  of  whom  he  speaks,  when  called  to  the  bar  of  God,  are  not 
liable  to  any  criminal  charge  whatever.  The  law  of  Sinai  does 
not  condemn  them.  The  law  in  their  own  hearts  urges  no  accusa- 
tion. The  only  charge  against  them  is,  of  sustaining  such  a  relation 
to  Adam  as  to  be  involved  in  his  punishment,  without  sharing  in  the 
turpitude  of  his  sin. 

A  single  additional  citation  will  complete  the  view  in  this  direc- 
tion:— "  As  the  term  death  is  used  for  any  and  every  evil  judicially 
inflicted  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  the  amount  and  nature  of  the  evil 

*  Hodge  on  the  Romans,  pp.  114,  119,  133. 


28 

not  being  expressed  by  the  word ;  it  is  no  part  of  the  apostle's  doc- 
trine that  eternal  misery  is  inflicted  on  any  man  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
irrespective  of  inherent  depravity  or  actual  transgression."*  Here, 
be  it  observed,  the  question  is  not  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  grace 
of  Christ  has  provided  salvation  for  infant  or  adult ;  but,  What  was  that 
deaifA  which,  by  law,  passed  upon  all,  for  Adam's  sin — that  death  which 
reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  infants  ?  Dr.  Hodge,  being 
interpreter,  it  is  not  eternal  misery.  What  then  is  the  situation  of 
those  infants  whom  v;e  have  just  traced  to  the  bar  of  God,  in  a 
state  of  freedom  from  all  impeachment,  except  for  Adam's  sin?  At 
the  tribunal  to  which  they  are  called,  there  is  no  penal  sentence 
short  of  eternal  misery.  That  is  not  denounced  against  them ;  and, 
in  short,  thus  innocent  of  all  real  crime,  and  having  left  behind 
them  the  inflictions  imposed  l)ecause  of  Adam's  sin,  they  are  under 
no  curse, — they  need  no  Saviour! 

In  respect  to  our  apostasy  in  the  person  of  Adam,  the  reviewer 
says:  "Apostasy  being  an  act  of  self-determination,  it  can  be  predi- 
cated only  of  persons,  and  if  the  apostasy  of  Adam  can  be  predicated 
of  us,  then  we  existed  as  persons,  thousands  of  years  before  we  existed 
at  all.  If  any  man  says  he  believes  this,  then,  as  we  think  he 
deceives  himself,  and  does  not  understand  what  he  says.  Dr.  Baird, 
however,  asserts  that  he  did  thus  act  in  Adam,  and  that  he  feels 
sorry  for  it.  He  teaches  that  we  are  bound  to  feel  remorse  and 
self-reproach  for  this  act  of  self-determination,  performed  so  many 
centuries  before  self  existed.  This  is  represented  as  a  genuine  form 
of  religious  experience,  an  experience  due  to  tlie  teachings  and 
influence  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  This  a  very  serious  matter.  To 
attribute  to  the  Spirit  of  God  the  mistakes  and  figments  of  our  own 
minds — to  represent  as  a  genuine  form  and  manifestation  of  the 
divine  life,  what  is  a  mere  delusion  of  our  own  imagination,  or  off- 
spring of  our  pride  of  intellect,  is  a  very  grave  offence,  and  a  very 
great  evil."t     On  this  place  we  make  two  or  three  remarks. 

1.  We  have  distinctly  defined  apostasy  to  be  "  the  self  deprava- 
tion of  a  nature  created  holy,"  and  stated  as  distinctly  that  the  only 
case  in  which  the  crime  could  have  been  personally  predicated  of 
any  of  Adam's  seed  would  be  upon  the  supposition  that  he  liad  not 
fallen,  and  tliey  had  been  put  on  trial  personally.."!:  Further,  we 
have  stated  that  "  it  would  be  a  false  and  impossible  remorse,  which 
should  assume  the  apostasy  of  Adam  to  be  a  private,  several  and 

*  Hodge  on  the  Komans,  p.  135.  t  Review,  p.  357. 

t  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  509. 


29 

personal  sin  of  the  several  posterity  of  Adam,  instead  of  being 
common  and  native."""  In  a  passage  already  quoted  (above  p.  13) 
we  have  carefully  guarded  against  the  supposition  that  our  oneness 
with  Adam  implies  an  obliterating  of  our  distinctive  personality, 
or  the  idea  that  we  personally  sinned  in  the  apostasy.  These  dis- 
tinctions are  recognized  throughout  the  book.  They  are  probably 
among  those  which,  in  the  reviewer's  estimation,  are  without  a  dif- 
ference. He  altogether  disregards  them,  and  g\qyj  where  repre- 
sents us  as  teaching  that  we,  personally,  sinned  in  Adam. 

2.  If  the  reviewer's  argument  be  worth  anything,  we  are  not 
Chargeable  with  apostasy  at  all.  This,  however,  we  have  seen  is 
essential  to  his  system.  We  are  only  punished  for  an  apostasy  in 
which  we  have  no  criminal  part. 

3.  Bj  turning  to  The  Elohim  Revealed,  page  499,  the  reader 
will  see  that  it  is  not  Dr.  Eaird,  but  Dr.  Goodwin,  whose  confes- 
sion of  guilt  and  profession  of  contrition  for  the  apostasy  excites 
the  alternate  sarcasm  and  indignation  of  the  reviewer.  And  we 
venture  to  advise  the  reader  to  be  sure  that  he  is  at  least  as  pro- 
foundly versed  in  the  deep  things  of  God,  as  was  that  distinguished 
member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  before  he  admits,  too  readily, 
the  criticisms  of  the  reviewer,  on  this  point. 

Tiie  Review-       j^  lespcct  to  thc  csscntial  depravity  of  man's  nature, 

ers  Doctrine  of  ^  i.  >/  i 

Depravity.  ^g  contradistinguishod  from  active  corruption  and  actual 
sin,  we  state  that,  "  the  law  demands  holiness — a  word  which  does 
not  express  any  form  of  mere  action,  but  a  state  of  all  the  powers 
and  of  the  nature  itself,  conformed  to  God's  nature.  To  this  law 
Christ  was  conformed  from  his  first  conception,  and  in  being  so, 
illustrated  the  extent  of  the  requirements  of  the  law,  which  says, 
Be  holy.  He  was  in  the  womb, '  that  holy  thing.'  To  the  law,  thus 
comprehensive  in  its  demands;  thus  claiming  the  allegiance  of  the 
soul  and  nature,  as  well  as  the  actions  and  life,  want  of  conformity 
is  sin."t  And  again,  "  The  soul  is  that  which  in  its  substance  and 
powers  intrinsically,  as  much  as  in  their  exercises,  was  created  and 
ordained  to  be  the  image  and  glory  of  God.  Conformity  of  this 
substance  to  this,  its  exalted  office,  is  holiness,  the  reverse  is  sin."| 
Here,  the  reviewer  cannot  find  terms  strong  enough  to  express  his 
scorn.  Not  content  with  the  assertion  that  he  can  discover  no 
meaning  in  our  language,  he  declares  that  he  does  not  believe  the 
author   had  a  meaning   at  all.     The  reader  who  appreciates  the 

*  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  449.  t  Ibid,  p.  254.  Ilbid,  p.  253. 


30 

revie-n^cr's  theory  above  indicated,  will  readily  imderstand  the  sig- 
nificance of  this  failure  of  comprehension. 

And  now  let  the  reader  glance  over  the  theory  here  traced  out 
in  its  most  conspicuous  features,  and  ask  himself,  by  what  accom- 
modation of  language  it  can  be  called  a  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
Rather  is  it  a  theory  of  original  punishment.  Not  only  is  it  as- 
serted that  Adam's  transgression  is  not  our  sin, — not  only  is  it 
denied  that  the  depravity  of  man  is  a  physiological  fact,  a  phe- 
nomenon of  generation,  but  it  is  denied  that  in  the  earlier  period  of 
infant  existence  any  criminal  charge  is  predicable  at  all,  either 
under  the  law  written  on  the  heart  or  that  of  Moses.  The  idea 
that  the  law  applies  to  the  soul  intrinsically  as  well  as  to  its  exer- 
cises,— that  sin  may  be  predicated  of  its  attitude  as  well  as  of  its 
actings, — is  represented  to  be  as  absurd  as  to  talk  of  "  the  moral 
character  of  a  tree,  or  the  correct  deportment  of  a  house."  At 
best,  the  system  resembles  the  "exercise  scheme"  of  Hopkins. 
Native  depravity  is  not  "  anything  in  itself  sinful."  The  earliest 
moral  responsibility,  is  based  upon  "  the  actual  tendency  or  disposition 
to  evil,"  which  is  generated  by  the  withdrawal  of  divine  influence 
and  the  activity  of  the  soul — a  tendency  which,  at  least,  so  far  as  it 
is  sinful  —  is  the  product  of  personal  activity,  since  it  is  not 
predicable  of  infants,  such  as  those  of  whom  Paul  speaks. 

In  respect  to  this  whole  scheme,  the  reader  is  requested  to  com- 
pare the  teachings  of  the  professor  with  those  of  Whitby,  in  his 
commentary  on  Romans,  v.  19.  He  will  find  that  they  stand  thus 
related: — (1.)  Whilst  the  former  states  that  "the  word  translated 
have  sinned,  may  be  rendered,  have  become  guilty,  or  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners."*  Whitby  interprets  the  language  as  meaning 
that  "  we  became  obnoxious  to  that  death  which  was  the  punishment 
of  his  sin," — a  phrase  precisely  answering  to  our  reviewer's  defini- 
tion of  his  own  word,  guilty.  (2.)  In  support  of  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word,  sin,  Whitby  cites  a  number  of  passages  from  the 
Old  Testament.  Our  reviewer's  evidence  is  selected  from  the  same 
passages ;  with  the  exception  that  he  takes  Job  ix.  29,  instead  of 
Whitby's  appeal  to  Job  ix.  20.  (3.)  Whitby  defines  the  penalty 
incurred  as  being  "  death  and  temporal  calamities ;"  Avhilst  Dr. 
Hodge  says  it  does  not  inflict  eternal  misery.  (4.)  Whitby,  holding 
that  imputation  implies  a  veritable  charge,  denies  that  Adam's  sin 
is  imputed  to  us.  The  reviewer  asserts  that  Adam's  sin  is  imputed 
to  us,  but  denies  this  to  imply  that  it  is  really  ours.    (5.)  They  both 

*  Hodge  on  the  Romans,  8vo,  1835,  p.  184. 


31 

with  one  voice  cry  out  against  the  absurdity  of  the  idea  that  we 
sinned  thousands  of  years  before  we  existed.  How  widely  they 
differ,  the  reader  may  determine. 

It  may  be  supposed  that  the  statements  of  doctrine,  which  we 
have  quoted  from  the  reviewer,  are  causal  and  inadvertant.  On 
the  contrary,  they  result  logically,  and  necessarily  from  his  first  prin- 
ciples to  which  we  have  alluded.  If  the  parallel  between  Adam  and 
Christ  involves  a  gratuitous  condemnation  of  Adam's  seed,  it  be- 
comes requisite,  in  order  to  apply  this  theory  to  the  language  of 
Paul,  to  eliminate  the  case  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  of  everything 
which  would  constitute  a  ground  of  deserved  condemnation.  Paul's 
argument  is  that  infants  die,  therefore  they  sinned  in  Adam.  Now,  if 
there  be  in  them  a  corruption  which  deserves  death,  it  must  be 
recognized  as  inseparable  from,  and  the  effect  and  terminus  ad  quern 
of  a  crime  of  which  we  are  really  guilty  in  Adam ;  else,  the  apostle 
must  have  traced  the  death  of  all,  not  to  that  sin  of  Adam  which  is 
denied  to  be  their  crime,  but  to  the  depravity  thus  recognized  as 
native  in  their  hearts. 

At  length,  as  the  infant  faculties  expand,  depravity  is  developed 
from  the  two  causes  already  indicated — the  withholding  of  divine 
influence,  and  the  activity  of  the  soul.     Of  neither  of  these  causes 
can  it  be  pretended  that  the  individual  is  the  criminal  author. 
They  are  both  immediately  from   God.     But  they  operate  so  as  to 
induce  "  the  tendency  to  sin,  or  corrupt  disposition  or  corruption 
of  nature."     Here,  the  objection  presents  itself:  How  can  tenden- 
cies thus  induced  be  charged  upon  us  as  our  crimes?     "This  cor- 
ruption of  nature  or  want  of  original  righteousness,"  says  Goodwin, 
"in  such   case  would   not  have  been  nor  could  not  have  been 
accounted  a  sin;  a  punishment  it  might."*     We  have  the  answer  of 
our  reviewer. — "The  n^iitov -^ii^o^  of  such  speculations  is,  that  moral 
principles  or  dispositions  owe  their  character  to  their  origin,  and 
not  to  their  nature.     It  is  assumed  that  innate  hereditary  depravity 
cannot  have  the  nature  of  sin  in  us  unless  it  be  self-originated.  .  . 
Adam  was  created  righteous.     Original  righteousness  in  him  had  a 
moral  character  in  the  sight  of  God,  although  not  self-originated. 
It  is  a  first  principle  of  Pelagianism,  that  moral  character  can 
attach  only  to  acts  of  self-determination  and  their  consequences. 
All  Pelagians,  therefore,  deny  that  Adam  was  created  holy.     He 
could  not  be  holy,  they  say,  unless  he  originated  his  own  character. 


*  Goodwin's  Works,  folio,  vol.  iii.  p.  15,  in  The  Elohim  Revealedj  p.  44. 


32 

So,  all  these  false  theories  assume  that  inherent  corruption  cannot 
have  the  nature  of  sin  unless  self-orio-inated.  If  Ave  are  born  cor- 
rupt, that  corruption  must  have  sprung  from  our  own  act  either  in 
a  former  state  of  existence  or  in  the  person  of  Adam.  AVhen  God, 
by  the  almighty  power  of  his  Spirit,  quickens  the  spiritually  dead, 
the  holiness  thus  originated  is  none  the  less  holiness."*  Here  we 
have  another  illustration  of  the  habitual  confusion  of  law  and  grace. 
— Because  God  may  work  in  us  holiness,  therefore  he  may  produce 
depravity !  In  fact,  the  whole  argument  results  from  the  review- 
er's contempt  for  some  of  those  distinctions  which  seem  to  us  impor- 
tant. It  is  true  Adam  was  created  holy.  But  the  question  is 
not  whether  holiness  is  good  and  sin  evil,  in  itself:  but,  To  whom 
does  the  merit  or  demerit  attach?  Was  Adam  entitled  to  the  merit 
of  his  concreated  holiness?  Or,  could  he  have  acquired  any  merit 
at  all,  had  he  been  so  constituted  that  he  could  not  sin?  That 
freedom  which  was  given  him  alike  to  holiness  and  sin  constituted 
an  element  in  his  moral  agency  without  which  neither  merit  nor 
demerit  were  possible  to  him.  The  saints  in  heaven  are  holy.  But 
to  whom  attaches  the  merit  of  that  holiness  ?  To  them,  or  to  that 
blessed  One  who  works  in  them  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good 
pleasure?  The  very  cases  cited  by  the  reviewer  prove,  therefore, 
that  the  merit  attaches  not  to  the  subject  of  the  attributes,  whether 
holy  or  unholy,  but  to  the  intelligent  author  of  them.  If  we  are  not 
criminally  responsible  for  the  origination  of  our  depravity,  neither 
are  we  for  its  existence  and  action.  It  may  be  our  calamity,  it 
cannot  be  our  crime. 

the^'^My^ticfi  The  only  other  feature  of  this  system  which  we  shall 
fification.'^"^'  now  mention,  has  respect  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  becomes  ours,  in  order  to  justification.  We 
have  seen  the  zeal  with  which  the  position  is  maintained,  that  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  "  does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
identity  of  Adam  and  his  race."  By  parity  of  reason  it  should 
not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  identity  between  Christ 
and  his  people.  And  accordingly,  in  the  system  presented 
in  the  review,  the  relation  which  in  the  Scriptures  and  our 
standards,  the  mystical  union  sustains  to  justification  is  ig- 
nored, and  the  doctrine  represented  as  complete  without  it,  and  to 
the  exclusion  of  it.     "  Christ  in  the  covenant  of  redemption,  is  con- 

*  Keview,  p.  358. 


^  33 

stitutecl  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people ;  and,  in  virtue 
of  this  federal  union,  and  agreeably  to  the  terms  of  the  eternal 
covenant,  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  having  done  what  he 
did  and  suffered  what  lie  suffered  in  their  name  and  in  their  behalf."* 
According  to  our  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  it  was  provided 
in  the  eternal  covenant  that  the  elect  should  be  actually  ingrafted 
into  Christ  by  his  Spirit,  and  their  acceptance  and  jnstification  is  by 
virtue  of  this  their  actual  union  to  him.  "  This  principle  is  not  to 
be  so  understood  as  though  the  character  thus  conveyed  were  the 
meritorious  cause  of  the  relations  predicated;  as  if  the  believer 
were  justified  by  the  personal  righteousness  which  he  receives 
through  the  power  of  Christ's  Spirit  given  to  him.  On  the  contrary, 
the  union,  which  is  constituted  by  virtue  of  the  transmission  of  the 
nature,  itself  conveys  a  proprietary  title  in  the  moral  and  legal  rela- 
tions of  the  head;  whilst  the  efficient  principle  which  thus  unites,  is 
also  fruitful  in  effects  appropriate  to  the  nature  whence  it  flows. 
Thus,  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  are  severally 
imputed  to  their  seed,  by  virtue  of  the  union,  constituted  in  the  one 
case  by  the  principle  of  natural  generation,  and  in  the  other,  by 
'  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,'  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  principle  of 
regeneration.  At  the  same  time,  the  power  by  which  the  union  is 
in  these  cases  severally  wrought  produces  likeness  to  the  head."t 
This  view  is  not  only  stated  in  specific  terras,  again  and  again,  but 
is  wrought  into  the  whole  texture  of  tlie  book,  to  wit : — that  "  the 
matter  of  justification  is  that  very,  whole  and  entire  righteousness 
which  the  Lord  Jesus  wrought  by  his  obedience  and  suffering;"  and 
that  "the  ground  of  the  justification  of  the  elect,  the  cause  of  the 
imputation  to  them  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  their  actual 
inbeing  in  Christ.  They  are  '  accepted  in  the  Beloved,' — Eph.  i.  6, 
because  they  really  are  in  Him."j:  This  doctrine,  our  reviewer 
persists  in  representing  as  undistinguishable  from  the  Romish  heresy 
of  justification  by  virtue  of  infused  righteousness,  the  subjective 
holiness  of  the  believer  ;  and  it  is  in  opposition  to  it  that  he  postu- 
lates the  statement  above  cited,  of  a  ''  constituted"  headship  and 
"  federal  union."  Whatever,  therefore,  is  comprehended  in  the 
meaning  of  these  terms,  they  do  not  embrace  but  exclude  the  mysti- 
cal union  in  its  relation  to  justification. 

How  important  this  point  is  to  the  questions  involved  between  us 


*  Review,  p.  340.      t  The  Elohim  Revealed,  p.  317.      \  Ibid,  p.  642,  643. 
3 


34 

is  evident.  If  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  be  founded 
in  a  real  inbeing  in  him,  wrought  by  the  uniting  power  of  his  Spirit 
in  regeneration, — if  it  is  thus  that  we  are  brought  within  the  pro- 
visions of  the  covenant  of  grace  to  our  justification,  it  follows,  (we 
will  venture  the  word,)  incontestahly,  that  the  imputation  to  us  of 
Adam's  sin,  is  founded  in  a  real  inlieing  in  him,  by  natural  genera- 
tion, by  virtue  of  which  we  come  under  the  provisions  of  the  cove- 
nant of  works,  to  our  condemnation.  But  this,  according  to  our 
reviewer,  is  "simply  a  physiological  theory,"  involving  "  a  mysteri- 
ous identity,"  which  he  cannot  admit.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
ignoring  the  doctrine,  in  its  relation  to  justification. 

And  yet  this  writer  does  not,  as  far  as  we  are  aware,  in  terms 
deny  the  doctrine  in  question,  nor  does  he  affirm  it.  He  merely 
in  silence,  excludes  it.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case  with  all  the 
disciples  of  his  system.  My  examiners  in  Presbytery  vehemently 
protested  that  the  mystical  union  had  nothing  to  do  with  justifica- 
tion, but  only  with  sanctification.  And  a  writer  who  in  the 
True  Witness  has  devoted  a  series  of  numbers  to  misrepresen- 
tation of  me,  is  equally  explicit.  He  declares  his  allegiance  in  the 
first  number : — 

"  I  found  him  [Dr.  Baird]  attempting  to   tear  up  by  the  roots  the 
clearest  aud  most  beautiful  exposition  of  the  5th  of  Romans  God  ever 
permitted  any  man  to  make.     I  had  been  really  so  simple,  way  out  here 
in  the  pine  woods,  as  to  think  that  no  man  in  the  church  could  for  a 
moment  suppose  any  other  exegesis  of  this  great  and  important  chapter 
could  be  given,  [than  that  of  Dr.  Hodge.]  We  had  seen,  with  triumphant 
exultation,  how,  with  this  interpretation  of  Paulism,  he  had  leveled  to 
the  dust  the  whole  host  of  new  school  men  ;  how  Stuart,  aud  Barnes,  and 
Tholuck,  and  Park,  and  all  others  appeared  as  mere  babblers  in  compari- 
son with  the  great  light  that  shines  in  such  glory  on  Princeton  heights."* 
In  defence  of  the  exegesis  thus  so  enthusiastically  embraced,  he  repre- 
sents it  as  perfectly  certain,  from  the  tenor  of  Paul's  argument,  "that 
God  does  account  and  accept  our  persons  as  righteous  in  him,  as  our 
federal  head,  prior  in  the  order  of  nature,  to  our  real  union  with  him  as 
our  vital  head  ?"!     "  But  Dr.  Baird  would  have  this  imputation  to  pro- 
ceed upon  what  he  terms  our  inbeing  in  Christ.     That  is,  after  we  have 
been  made  holy  through  our  vital  union  to  him,  then  his  righteousness 
becomes  ours,  and  is  imputed  to  us  as  what  is  really  ours,  not  forensically 
so.     .     .     .     Now,  I  challenge  the  very  first  passage  of  sacred  writ  to 


*  True  Witness,  March  10,  1860.  t  Ibid. 


35 

prove  we  have  or  can  have  our  inbeing  in  Christ  vitally  and  really,  before 
we  have  our  inbeing  in  him  legally  or  by  imputation.  It  is  impossible : 
the  one  is  the  cause  of  the  other.  .  .  .  So  we  conclude  in  respect  of 
Adam,  or  the  apostle  reasons  illogically ;  that,  as  we  cannot  be  justified 
in  the  sight  of  God,  except  by  our  federal  union  with  Christ,  nor  have 
our  real  inbeing  in  him  before  we  have  it  legally ;  so  wc  cannot  be  con- 
demned in  Grod's  sight,  except  by  our  federal  union  with  Adam,  nor  have 
our  real  inbeing  in  him,  before  we  have  it  legally.  Hence  the  conclusion 
to  my  mind  seems  inevitable,  that,  so  far  from  the  federal  union  being 
dependent  upon,  and  in  consequence  of  the  natural,  the  natural  would 
never  have  been  but  for  the  federal  union."* 

Such  is  the  doctrine  in  vindication  of  which  this  writer  is  per- 
mitted by  the  editor  of  the  True  Witness  to  write  "  heretic"  against 
1117  name. 

Thus,  then,  stands  the  case. — The  doctrine  that  we  are  clothed 
with  Christ's  righteousness  by  being  ingrafted  into  his  mystical 
person,  is  ignored  and  excluded  in  the  reviewer's  own  exposition 
and  argument ; — as  stated  clearly  in  The  Elohini  Revealed,  it  is  by 
him  persistently  confounded  with  the  Romish  doctrine  of  infused 
righteousness;  logical  consistency  demands  its  rejection  from  his 
system ;  and  by  his  disciples  it  is  in  terms  repudiated  and  derided. 
He  may  refuse  to  be  held  responsible  for  their  representations. 
They,  however,  none  the  less  truly  exhibit  the  logical  result  and 
actual  effect  of  his  teachings.  How  important  the  consequences 
involved  it  is  for  good  men  to  consider. 

o"//o^o"^  That  the  doctrine  which  is  thus  assailed  and  repudiated 
Authorities,  jg  ^^r^^  ^f  ^j^g  Rcformcd  Church  we  had  supposed  to  be 
unquestionable.  Hence,  in  writing  our  work,  attention  was  given 
mainly  to  the  subject  of  original  sin;  the  correlative  doctrine  of 
justification  being  merely  sketched  in  a  parallel  to  the  other,  with- 
out entering  into  the  argument  or  citing  the  standard  theologians. 
The  present  seems  an  appropriate  occasion  for  a  partial  supply  of 
the  latter  omission. 

Says  Calvin :  "  That  the  cavils  of  Osiander  may  not  deoeive  the  inex- 
perienced, I  confess  that  we  are  destitute  of  this  incomparable  blessing 
[justification]  till  Christ  becomes  ours.  I  attribute,  therefore,  the  highest 
importance  to  the  connection  between  the  head  and  members  ;  to  the 
inhabitation  of  Christ  in  our  hearts ;  in  a  word,  to  the  mystical  union  by 


*  True  Witness,  March  31. 


36 

which  we  enjoy  him ;  so  that,  being  made  ours,  he  makes  no  partakers  of 
the  blessings  with  which  he  is  furnished.  We  do  not,  then,  contemplate 
him  at  a  distance  out  of  ourselves,  that  his  righteousness  may  be  imputed 
to  us ;  but  because  we  have  put  him  on,  and  are  ingrafted  into  his  body ; 
and  because  he  has  deigned  to  unite  us  to  himself,  therefore  we  glory  in 
a  participation  of  his  righteousness."* 

Says  Owen:  "The  foundation  of  the  imputation  asserted  is  union. 
Hereof  there  are  many  grounds  and  causes  as  hath  been  declared.  But 
that  which  we  have  immediate  respect  unto  as  the  foundation  of  this  im- 
putation, is  that  whereby  the  Lord  Christ  and  believers  do  actually 
coalesce  into  one  mystical  person.  This  is  by  the  Holy  Spirit  inhabiting 
in  him  as  the  head  of  the  church  in  all  fullness,  and  in  all  believers 
according  to  their  measure,  whereby  they  become  members  of  his  mystical 
body.  .  .  .  Upon  supposition  of  this  union,  reason  will  grant  the 
imputation  pleaded  for  to  be  reasonable ;  at  least,  that  there  is  such  pecu- 
liar ground  for  it  as  is  not  to  be  exemplified  in  any  things  natural  or  poli- 
tical among  men.  .  .  .  That  which  is  imputed  is  the  righteousness 
of  Christ. "t 

Boston,  in  his  Fourfold  State,  opens  The  State  of  Grace,  Head  2,  with 
a  full  discussion  of  the  mystical  union  in  a  parallel  with  the  natural  union 
to  Adam,  and  upon  that  union  predicates  all  the  blessings  of  salvation  : — 
justification,  peace,  adoption,  sanctification,  &c.  "The  first  particular 
benefit  that  a  sinner  has  by  his  union  with  Christ  is  justification ;  for, 
being  united  to  Christ,  he  has  communion  with  him  in  his  righteousness." 
"  Thus  the  person  united  to  Christ  is  justified.  You  may  conceive  the 
whole  proceeding  in  this  manner.  The  avenger  of  blood  pursuing  the 
criminal,  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  lost  sinners  does  by  the  Spirit  apprehend 
him,  and  draw  him  to  himself;  and  he,  by  faith,  lays  hold  on  Christ;  so 
the  Lord  our  righteousness  and  the  unrighteous  creature  unite.  From 
this  union  with  Christ  results  a  communion  with  him  in  his  unsearchable 
riches,  and  consequently  in  his  righteousness,  that  white  raiment  which 
he  has  for  clothing  of  the  naked.  Bev.  iii :  18.  Thus  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  becomes  his :  and  because  it  is  his  by  unquestionable  title,  it  is 
imputed  to  him ;  it  is  reckoned  his  in  the  judgment  of  God,  which  is 
always  according  to  truth. "J 

But  why  should  we  accumulate  evidence  on  this  point,  on  which 
the  reader  will  find  the  ready  testimony  of  the  first  standard  writer 
to  whom  he  turns  ?  We  will  only  add  the  Confessions  of  the  Scotch 
Church  and  of  our  own. 

*  Calvin  lust.,  L.  III.,  cap.  xi.  §  10.  tOwen  on  Justification,  ch.  0. 

I  Fourfold  State.     Board  of  Pub.,  pp.  195,  19G. 


37 

"It  behooveth  us,"  says  the  first  Scotch  confession,  "to  apprehend 
Christ  Jesus,  with  his  justice  and  satisfaction,  who  is  the  end  and  accom- 
plishment of  the  law,  by  whom  we  are  set  at  liberty,  that  the  curse  and 
malediction  of  Grod  fall  not  upon  us,  albeit  we  fulfill  not  the  same  in  all 
points ;  for  God,  the  Father,  beholding  us  in  the  body  of  his  Son  Christ 
Jesus,  accepteth  our  imperfect  obedience  as  it  were  perfect,  and  covers 
our  works  which  are  defiled  with  many  spots,  with  the  justice  of  his 
Son."* 

"We  assuredly  believe  that  by  baptism  we  are  ingrafted  in  Christ 
Jesus,  to  be  made  partakers  of  his  justice,  whereby  our  sins  are  covered 
and  remitted."! 

Our  next  authority  is  the  "Form  of  Examination  before  the 
Communion,  approved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland,  1591,  and  appointed  to  be  used  in  families  and  schools." 
It  is  commonly  called  Craig's  Catechism. 

"  III.  Of  our  participation  of  Christ  and  his  merits.  Ques.  How  is 
that  wrought  ?  Ans.  Through  his  continual  intercession  for  us  in  heaven. — 
Heb.  vii:  25.  Q.  Declare  how  that  is  done.  A.  Hereby  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  sent. — John  xiv  :  16,  26.  Q.  What  doth  the  Spirit  in  this  work  ? 
A.  He  ofi"ereth  Christ  and  his  graces,  and  moveth  us  to  receive  him.  Q. 
How  doth  he  ofi'er  Christ  to  us  1  A.  By  the  preaching  of  the  evangel. — 
Rom.  X :  13 ;  xiii :  15.  Q.  How  doth  he  move  us  to  receive  him  1  A. 
Through  printing  in  our  hearts  true  faith  in  Christ. — Acts  xvi :  14.  Q. 
What  thing  is  faith  in  Christ  1  A.  A  sure  persuasion  that  he  is  the  only 
Saviour  of  the  world,  but  ours  in  special,  who  believe  in  him. — John  vi. 
Q.  What  doth  this  faith  work?  A.  Our  inseparable  union  with  Christ  in 
his  graces.— Eph.  iii :  16-19.  Q.  What  is  the  first  fruit  of  this  union  ? 
A.  Remission  of  our  sins  and  imputation  of  justice. — Rom.  vi :  19." 

We  need  not  recite  the  various  testimonies  contained  in  the 
Westminster  standards.  The  Shorter  Catechism  embraces  the 
whole  in  a  few  words.  "  We  are  made  partakers  of  the  redemption 
purchased  by  Christ  by  the  effectual  application  of  it  to  us  by  his 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Spirit  applieth  to  us  the  redemption  purchased 
by  Christ,  by  working  faith  in  us,  and  therel)y  uniting  us  to  Christ, 
in  our  effectual  calling.  They  that  are  eflFectually  called  do  in  this 
life  partake  of  justification,  adoption,  sauctification,  and  the  several 
benefits  which  in  this  life  do  either  accompany  or  flow  from  tliem." 
Baptism  "  doth  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  par- 


*First  Scotch  Conf.,  Art.  xv.  tibid,  Art.  xxi. 


38 

taking  of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagement 
to  be  the  Lord's." 

In  Fisher's  catechism  tliis  doctrine  is  fully  unfolded.  A  single 
sentence  is  a  clue  to  his  entire  system.  "  What  is  the  connection 
between  effectual  calling  and  justiHcation?  A.  Ineffectual  calling, 
sinners  being  united  to  Christ  by  faith  have  thereby  communion 
with  him  in  his  righteousness  for  justification." 

Personal  At-       ^^q  jj^g^y  ^ot  closG  witliout  a  word  in  respect  to  the 

titude    of    the  •'  ^ 

Reviewer.  attitudc  which,  throughout,  the  reviewer  assumes,  and 
the  style  in  which  he  has  thought  proper  to  express  himself,  as 
tpwards  the  author.  That,  in  these  respects,  the  article  is  indefen- 
sible, the  last  paragraph  is  evidence,  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  one 
of  the  most  exceptionable  passages  in  the  entire  review.  Whilst  it 
reveals  a  consciousness  of  the  improprieties  already  committed,  it 
attempts  to  weaken  the  force  of  public  condemnation,  by  an  addi- 
tional wrong — by  appeal  to  the  lex  talionis — accusing  me  of  doing 
violence  to  the  rules  of  courtesy,  in  the  book.  In  respect  to  that 
charge,  the  evidence  was  some  time  since  laid  before  the  public ; 
upon  which  a  decisive  verdict  has  been  rendered.  Impelled  to  the 
})ublication  of  my  treatise  by  a  sense  of  imperative  obligation — it 
was  written  under  an  impressive  apprehension  of  the  responsibility 
involved ;  and  with  the  most  anxious  endeavor  to  meet  that  respon- 
sibility in  a  spirit  of  Christian  charity  and  fraternal  courtesy — speak- 
ing what  seemed  to  me  the  truth,  irrespective  of  persons ;  but  speak- 
ing the  truth  in  love.  Toward  Dr.  Hodge  especially  a  heartfelt 
respect  dictated  a  style  which  has  been  criticised  as  too  deferential 
to  accord  with  good  taste.  I  was  willing  to  err  in  that  direction ; 
and  after  the  work  was  issued  from  the  press,  went  out  of  the  way 
to  give  further  expressions  to  feelings  of  sincere  personal  regard.* 


*  The  following  note  accompanied  a  tinted  copy  of  the  book : — 

Woodbury,  N.  J.,  Nov.  23,  1859. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : — The  failure  of  ray  publishers  has  temporarily  suspended 
the  issue  of  the  accompanying  work.  A  few  copies  having  been  printed  on 
extra  paper,  I  have  obtained  some  of  them  in  advance,  and  venture  to  ask  your 
acceptance  of  this  copy,  as  an  assurance  that  if  I  have  ventured  in  it  to  dissent 
from  some  of  your  published  opinions,  it  is  in  entire  consistency  with  the  most 
cordial  personal  respect  and  esteem,  with  which  I  am  Yours  truly, 

Samuel  J.  Baird. 

Rev.  Charles  Hodge,  D.D. 

To  this  note  no  response  has  been  received,  except  the  notices  of  the  book 
which  have  appeared  in  the  pages  of  the  Repertory. 


'39 

All  this  may  have  been  misunderstood.  The  single  object  was,  to 
give  such  an  impress  to  any  discussions  which  might  ensue,  as  to 
prevent  cause  of  exultation  to  the  enemy,  or  occasion  of  grief  to 
the  friends  of  peace. 

In  what  manner  these  overtures  have  been  met,  the  public  is  aware ; 
in  a  style  to  which  I  can  make  no  response.  The  design,  however, 
is  manifest— by  assuming  the  attitude  of  unapproachable  superiority, 
and  adopting  language  of  most  contemptuous  disparagement, 
and  a  tone  of  uncompromising  proscription,  to  startle  discussion 
into  silence,  stigmatize  the  doctrines  which  the  reviewer  opposes,  and 
enforce  unquestioning  acquiescence  in  his  peculiar  opinions.  Perhaps 
it  is  better  so.  It  has  rendered  necessary  a  more  distinct  exposi- 
tion, than  might  in  other  circumstances  have  been  proper,  of  the 
true  character  of  those  opinions ;  contrary  as  I  believe  them  to  be 
to  the  standards  of  our  church,  and  of  very  serious  import  to  the 
system  of  grace.*  Nor  am  I  aware  of  anything  which  entitles  the 
reviewer  to  peculiar  exemption  from  such  criticism,  or  to  recognition 
as  the  gnomon  of  Old  School  orthodoxy.  On  the  contrary,  the  his- 
tory  of  the  great  questions  which  have  been  agitated  in  the  church 
within  the  last  thirty  years,  from  the  issues  raised  by  the  Act  and 
Testimony  to  those  of  Romish  baptism  and  the  idea  and  constitution 
of  the  church,— affords  abundant  illustration  of  the  fact  that 
dissent  from  the  reviewer's  most  cherished  opinions  may  be  per- 
fectly consistent  with  unimpeachable  fealty  to  the  church,  and  even 
essential  to  harmony  with  her  sentiments  on  the  most  important 
subjects.  And  a  doctrine  of  imputation  which  comes  to  us  boasting 
the  suffrages  of  Messrs.  Stuart  and  Barnes,t  and  which  is  derived 
from  the  fifth  of  Romans,  by  an  exegesis  of  the  word  "  sin,"  which 
is  essentially  that  of  Whitby,  in  its  argument,  its  proof  texts  and 
its  conclusion,  is  so  far  from  being  entitled  to  unquestioned  cur- 


*The  reviewer  seems  to  concede  that  his  system  does  not  precisely  con- 
form to  the  primitive  standard  of  Reformed  orthodoxy.  "We  find  in  the 
history  of  Protestant  theology  much  more  inconsistency  and  confusion  during 
the  sixteenth  than  during  the  seventeenth  century.  It  was  not  until  after  one 
principle  had  been  allowed  to  modify  another  that  the  scheme  of  doctrine  came 
to  adjust  itself  to  the  consistent  and  moderate  form  in  which  it  is  presented  in 
the  writings  of  Turrcttin  and  Gcrh&vd.''— Review,  p.  338.  The  close  of  the 
sixteenth  century  was  signalized  by  a  revival  of  a  philosophical  spirit.  The 
theology  of  the  sixteenth  century,— of  Calvin,— is  characteristically  Biblical, 
that  of  the  seventeenth,  philosophical.     The  change  was  no  improvement. 

t  Hodge  on  the  Romans,  8vo.,  1835,  p.  107. 


40 

rency,  that  it  compels  the  inquiry  whether  our  church  was  mistaken 
as  to  the  importance  of  the  doctrinal  issues  which  rent  her  asunder, 
— whether  there  is  nothing  but  words  between  her  and  those  whom 
she  rejected  from  her  bosom  as  derelict  to  the  truth. -^ 

Had  duty  permitted,  I  would  gladly  have  avoided  the  present 
discussion.     But  the  repeated  attempt  to  erect  the  peculiar  opinions 
of  Dr.  Hodge  into  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  to  denounce  and  proscribe 
the  doctrine  which  our  church  in  her  catechisms  taught  me  in  child- 
hood, and  to  compel  my  acceptance  of  those  opinions  and  rejection 
of  that  doctrine,  under  penalty  of  the  ban  of  heresy,  has  left  me 
no  alternative  but  to  make  an  unequivocal  statement  of  the  reasons 
which  forbid  the  exchange,  and  induce  me  to  regard  with  distrust 
and  apprehension  the  scheme  which  1  reject.    In  making  this  expo- 
sition,  1  have  confined  myself  to  a  development,  mainly  in   the 
tlie  reviewer's  own  language,  of  the  systematic  relations  and  logical 
consequences  of  the  principles  in  behalf  of  which  he  assails  my  trea- 
tise.   Many  things  of  importance  in  the  pages  of  the  review  and  in  the 
reviewer's  system  have  been  left  untouched.     Enough,  I  trust,  has 
been  said  to  convince  every  thoughtful  mind  that  questions  of  pro- 
found importance  are  involved; — and  that  it  will  require  for  their 
solution  something  much  more  serious  than  is  attempted  in  the 
review.     The  whole  subject  is  commended  to  the  consideration  of 
the  church,  and  to  the  determination  of  her  glorious  Head. 


*'^  There  is  no  mysterious  oneness  of  the  race,  no  transfer  of  moral  character, 
no  assumption  of  the  moral  guilt  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  involved  in  the 
doctrine.  Professor  Park  knows  this,  for  he  himself  makes  the  question  on  this 
subject  to  be  whether  God  exercises  distributive  justice,  or  sovereignty  towards 
us  in  causing  us  to  suffer  for  the  sin  of  Adam."  Again,— "  Professor  Park  him- 
self says,—'  Our  calamities  hang  suspended  on  the  sovereign  purpose  of  heaven ; 
we  say  directly,  he  [Dr.  Hodge]  says  indirectly;  we  say,  without  any  interven- 
ing links;  he  says,  with  the  intervening  links  of  imputation,  guilt,  &c.'  When 
we  first  read  this  sentence  we  could  hardly  believe  that  Professor  Park  had 
been  given  up  to  speak  the  truth  thus  simply  and  clearly.  It  is  precisely  as  he 
states  it.  A  man  is  put  to  death,  he  says,  by  a  sovereign  act;  we  say,  with  the 
trifling  intermediate  links  of  guilt  and  just  condemnation. '^-i^e^jieri'ory,  Oct. 
1851,  pp.  679,  680.  If  the  reader  will  take  into  account  the  reviewer's  definition 

of  guilt,— liability  to  evils  which  are  penal  although  no  real  crime  is  charo-ed 

he  will  be  possessed  of  the  precise  extent  of  the  issue  on  this  point  between 
the  two  professors. 


o 


ICI 


